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. Facts of recognition;
A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, respectively.
B. There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding each of the instant real estate, and no agreement on the method of partition of each of the instant real estate has been reached until the date of closing the argument in this case
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, 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 partition of each real estate of this case jointly owned 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 each co-owner's share. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in form, if the value of the 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 it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after division, etc. of the co-owned property, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind if it is divided in kind." Even if the co-owner's co-owner's share might remarkably decrease in value, it includes cases where the value of the portion to be owned by the sole owner might substantially decrease the share value before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da4582, Apr. 28, 2002).