beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs are paid KRW 6,272,030 from the defendant, and each of them is stated in the attached list to the defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiffs at the rate of 1/13 and 11/13 shares.
B. The plaintiffs and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each real estate of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A3 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of each real estate of this case, may file a claim against other co-owners for partition pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. In a case where an agreement on the method of partition is not reached, if an article jointly owned is divided by a trial, the court shall divide it in kind in principle, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article can be ordered only when the value of the article is likely to be significantly reduced.
It is recognized that it is reasonable to acquire the jointly owned property concerned to a specific person, comprehensively taking into account the cause of the co-ownership relationship, the ratio of co-ownership to co-ownership, the economic value of the co-ownership in the case of division, the desire of co-owners for the method of division, and the acquisition of the price of shares to other co-owners is deemed not detrimental to the substantial fairness of co-owners. In special circumstances where the acquisition of the price of shares to other co-owners is deemed not detrimental to the co-owners, the jointly owned property shall be owned by one of the co-owners, and the co-owners who own the goods in kind shall be allowed to divide the jointly owned property into one of the co-owners by the method of compensating for the appropriate and reasonable price of shares to the other co-owners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da30583, Oct. 14, 2004). In light of the above legal principles, the present