beta
Text
1. The amount of money remaining after selling five square meters in Busanjin-gu to auction at auction, which remains after deducting the auction expenses from the price; and
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the Plaintiff 94/152 and Defendant 58/152’s share of 5 square meters in Busan Jin-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. There was no partition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim a partition of the instant real estate against the Defendant, who is another co-owner pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
(b) In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered, and the "undivided in kind" shall not be physically interpreted strictly, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use of the article jointly-owned and the use value after the division, etc.
The phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned independently by the co-owner may be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division even if the co-owner's share is divided in kind.
The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, and No. 5, namely, the real estate in this case is a small land with the area of five square meters only, and it seems that the division is restricted. The real estate in this case appears that only one direction is difficult to equally divide the value of use due to the road abutting on the road, and where the real estate in this case is divided according to the ratio of shares, the area of the Plaintiff’s land is three.