beta
Text
1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 will be put to an auction and the proceeds will be deducted from the auction cost.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate in the annexed sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. owns 2602.75/1305 shares, Plaintiff B’s 661/1305 shares, Defendant C’s 3/8 shares, Defendant D’s 2/8 shares, and Defendant E owns 1/8 shares.
B. There is no agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants not to divide the instant real estate, and as of the closing date of the instant pleadings, the Defendants did not comply with the Plaintiffs’ request for partition consultation.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3-2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of each real estate of this case, under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. As a matter of principle, division of co-owned property by judgment is to be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to each co-owner's share. If it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is possible to divide in kind the value of the property, the auction of the property may be ordered if the value of the property might be significantly reduced (Article 269 of the Civil Act). The requirement that "in the payment division, it may not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the property jointly owned, and the use value after the division.
(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). C.
Modern, Modern.