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. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 2, each of the entries and arguments as to the co-owners and shares in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate in this case"), the plaintiff and the defendants shared shares as stated in the separate sheet, and there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants as to the method of dividing the real estate in this case by the closing date of arguments in this case.
Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, can seek a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are the remaining co-owners pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the
2. The partition of co-owned property, based on the decision on the method of partition of co-owned property, shall be made by the method of in-kind partition, or, even if it is impossible in-kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to the auction of the co-owned property, by the method of so-called price partition.
Here, "The price is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division" refers to not only the case where the exchange value of the whole co-owned property is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division but also the case where the value of the part to be owned independently due to the in-kind division is considerably reduced compared to the share value in the co-owners before the partition of co-owned property.
Therefore, even if it is possible to divide property in kind formally, if it is not possible to divide property in kind according to the share ratio of each co-owner in kind, it is not necessary to divide the property in kind, but to divide the property jointly owned by the method of payment in kind in consideration of the location, area and surrounding road conditions, use value, price, share ratio of co-owner's ownership and use and profit-making status, etc.
Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on April 2002