beta
Text
1.The return of H 679 square meters will be put to an auction for the racing and the remaining amount after deducting the costs of the auction from the proceeds.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The real estate stated in the order (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Appointed Party I, J, K, L, M, and the Defendants.
B. The Plaintiff, the designated parties, and the Defendants did not hold a division agreement on the instant real estate, and there is no agreement prohibiting division.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the designated parties, co-owners of the instant real estate, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the instant real estate in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by an erroneous judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “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 consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of co-owner's share.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). As to the instant case, if the instant real estate is divided in kind with the share of co-owners, it is highly likely that part of the land less than the minimum partitioned area may occur if the instant real estate is divided in kind with the share of co-owners, and even if the portion is not the small size, the number of co-owners is large and the size of the land divided to co-owners is small. In such a case, each divided land is likely to remarkably reduce the value of each divided land, and the Defendants do not express their special opinion on the method of