1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to their co-ownership shares listed in the attached Table (2).

Until the closing date of the instant case, no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may request the Defendants to divide the land of this case, which is the co-owned property.

Furthermore, as to the method of partition, the court may order the auction of the co-owned property when the value of the co-owned property might be reduced substantially if the co-owned property can not be divided in kind or in kind, or the co-owned property can be divided in kind (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). The case where the co-owned property cannot be divided in kind includes the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation of the co-owned property, use value after the division, etc.

I would like to say.

Considering the overall circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the area of the instant land, the number of co-owners, conflict of interests between co-owners, and the fact that G, a defendant foundation, constitutes a public-service corporation, it is reasonable to deem that the instant land falls under a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind. Therefore, it is fair and reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction costs from the proceeds of the auction to the auction and the Defendants’ co-ownership share.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The lawsuit of partition of co-owned property is a formative lawsuit, so it is not bound by the plaintiff's purport of the claim, but can be judged by the purpose of division.