Co-owned property partition method in litigation

In a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property, the court shall order the division according to the share ratio in a reasonable way, which comprehensively takes into account the co-ownership relation or the situation of the goods which are the objects thereof, and the share ratio, in principle, shall be based on the share ratio, and if the shape, location, utilization status, or economic value of the object is not equal, in principle, the economic value shall be adjusted according to the share ratio, but if there is a reason, such as the case can be divided in kind, and there is no reasonable method corresponding to the share ratio among the co-owners, the method of adjusting the economic value of money may also be considered.

Article 269 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant 1 and one other

Suwon District Court Decision 91Na7405 delivered on July 21, 1992

Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

Second, we examine the grounds for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the method of dividing the forest of this case by 46,909 square meters owned by the plaintiff (1/4 shares) and the defendants (2/4 shares of the defendant), the lower court acknowledged the fact that the price of the forest of this case differs from 2,700 to 100 square meters per square meter, the first instance court's on-site inspection result, the survey and appraisal by the appraiser 1 and 2, and the market price appraisal result, etc., while the lower court's lower part of the forest of this case is adjacent to farmland while the lower part of the forest of this case is adjacent to farmland, while the left part and the right part toward the normal part in the lower part of the forest of this case are in a valley, and it is possible to develop in the future, but there is a little degree of use from the lower court to the middle part of the forest of this case, and therefore, it is difficult to determine the lower court's above 2,700 to 10,600 square meters per square meter.

As mentioned in the judgment of remand in this case, in a lawsuit for the division of jointly owned property, the court shall order the division according to the ratio of shares in a reasonable manner by comprehensively taking into account the co-ownership relation or all the circumstances of the goods which are the objects thereof, and in principle, the ratio of shares in this case shall be based on the ratio of the value of shares (exchange value). In the case where the form, location, utilization condition or economic value of the object is not equal, in principle, the economic value shall be adjusted according to the ratio of shares. However, if there is a reason such as where the division in kind is possible and there is no reasonable method of the division in kind between the co-owners, even though it is necessary, the method of adjusting the economic value in kind may also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7620, Aug. 28

The court below determined that the price of the above forest land differs substantially depending on the location of each co-owner's share ratio, but the value of the divided part is not adjusted in proportion to the share ratio of co-owner's share ratio, and the above divided part is ultimately an error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as to the partition of co-owned property, failure in reasoning, and incomplete hearing.

The appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices