beta
Text
1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff and the Defendants jointly share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) at the rates of 18,508,360, Defendant A9,915/198,360, Defendant B 19,830/198,360, Defendant C18,508/198,360, Defendant DD 39,660/198,360, Defendant E 18,508/198,360, Defendant F9,915/198,360, Defendant G19,830/198,360, Defendant H19,860/198,360, Defendant I,860, 19,860/198, and 360, Defendant J19,83/198, and 360/198, respectively.
There was no partition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff, a co-owner of the real estate of this case, may file a claim for the division of the real estate of this case against the defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
As to the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, the method of partition in kind should be applied to the case where a rational partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably, the auction of the co-owned property should be ordered to divide the price (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). In light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the fact inquiry with respect to K Eup in South and North Korea, the real property of this case is in conflict with the minimum size of partition under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and it cannot be divided in kind. Thus, it is reasonable to divide the proceeds from auction by allocating the proceeds from sale in kind according to the share of co-owner.
Therefore, the instant real estate shall be divided by distributing the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and the Defendants according to the ratio indicated in the order, which is the joint ownership share ratio, to the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the sale price.
3. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable.