beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff is paid KRW 60,114,693 from each of the defendants.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the written appraisal by appraiser E, determination on the claim for partition of co-owned property as to the claim, 102 can be acknowledged that: (a) the first floor among the second apartment houses in the apartment house in the apartment house in the second floor is located for more than 30 years; (b) the market price as of January 1, 2016 was 360,688,160; and (c) there was no consultation on the method of partition as referred to in subparagraph 102 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, the owner of 1/3 shares among 102, may file a claim for the installment of 102 with the Defendants. 102, as a single sectional ownership, can be recognized that the installment in kind is practically impossible, and the auction price decline is likely to occur in light of the situation of use of 102 and the number of years elapsed. Thus, 102 shall be owned by the Defendants, and it is reasonable to divide the Plaintiff in kind in the manner of compensating the Plaintiff for the price corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share.
Therefore, at the same time, the Plaintiff received payment from the Defendants each of KRW 60,114,693 (=360,68,160 x less than KRW 1/60 x less than KRW 1/6 and less than KRW 1/6). At the same time, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/6 shares of KRW 102 /6 /6 10 from the Plaintiff, and the Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 60,114,693 to the Plaintiff, respectively.
3. Determination as to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the cause of the claim was exclusively used by the Plaintiff by leasing Nos. 102 after D’s death, and thus, the Defendants were entitled to KRW 10,800,530, the appropriate rent for the period from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016, and KRW 10,80,530, and KRW 2016.