beta
Text
1. The remainder of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the cost of the auction from the proceeds of the auction;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”) by co-ownership shares listed in paragraph (1) of this Article.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate by the date of closing the argument in this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for partition of the instant real estate, pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. The partition of co-owned property by one trial on the method of partition shall be, in principle, made in kind or in kind, impossible or in form.
Even if the price of the article jointly owned is likely to be reduced remarkably due to it, the auction of the article jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(2) of the Civil Code shall be made by the so-called method of division of the price. The price of the article substantially reduced due to the in-kind division shall be not only where the exchange value of the article jointly owned is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division but also where the value of the article to be owned by the co-owners is considerably reduced considerably due to the in-kind division as well as where the share of the co-owners would be owned by the in-kind division, even if the price of the article to be owned by the co-owners is not fairly divided, it shall be included in this case. Thus, even if
Even if the location, area, surrounding road conditions, use value, price, share ratio of each co-owner, and the current status of use and profit-making of the co-owner's property can not be divided equally according to the share ratio of each co-owner.