beta
Text
1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be put to an auction and the proceeds from the auction shall be deducted;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As a result of the death of the I on August 10, 2014, the Defendants and J inherited each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the share ratio (the Plaintiff’s share was the J’s share) indicated in the separate sheet No. 2.
(2) On April 26, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) awarded the said co-ownership share in the compulsory auction procedure (this Court K) on the said co-ownership (11/44); and (b) fully paid the successful bid price.
B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the instant real estate until the closing date of the instant argument, such as division consultation, and there was no agreement prohibiting division regarding each of the instant real estate.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6, whole purport of pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim the division of the instant real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.
(b) If the co-owned property is divided by a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, by dividing it in kind, or in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value thereof is apprehended to decrease remarkably, an auction of the co-owned property may be ordered to be paid in installments;
Here, the requirement of "undivided in kind" includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the article in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, current use, value of use after the division.
In addition, the phrase “where the value of the division is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind” includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by himself/herself is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the value of the share before the division (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015).