1. The remainder of the sale price calculated by deducting the auction cost from the sale price by selling the 1,739 square meters of answer D in Sungsung-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 31, 1999, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on July 20, 1999 with respect to one-half share of D 1,739 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On July 20, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on July 20, 2018, with respect to the remaining 1/2 shares of the instant land, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared (each 1/2 shares) the instant land.

C. Meanwhile, on July 20, 2018, the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s share in the instant land, which is the debtor, E-mortgage, and F-mortgage, was completed on July 20, 2018.

There was no partition prohibition agreement on the land of this case, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the partition method of the land of this case until the closing date of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim a partition of the land of this case against the Defendant, who is another co-owner pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Furthermore, as to the method of partition of the land of this case which is the jointly owned property, in the case of dividing the jointly owned property by a trial, it is a principle that dividing it in kind. However, in the case of dividing it in kind or in the case of dividing it in kind, if the value of the property is apprehended to be significantly reduced, the auction of the property may be ordered, and the "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and use value after the division, etc. of the jointly owned property.

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219 Decided September 10, 2009