beta
Text
1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants own 1/3 shares of each of the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).
The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree not to divide each of the instant real estate.
In addition, there was no agreement on the division method of each real estate of this case until the closing date of the pleadings of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. In principle, partition of co-owned property in kind can be divided in accordance with the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in form, if the value of the co-owner's co-owned property might be significantly reduced, the so-called price division can be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property, but it cannot be divided in kind in the price division. It does not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's property, and it also includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owner in kind in consideration of the nature of the co-owned property, location, use situation, use value after the division, etc., and it also includes cases where even if the co-owner's co-owner's share might remarkably decrease compared with the share value before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da41382, Apr. 2, 2002).