beta
Text
1. Paragraph 2 of the Disposition of the first instance court is amended as follows:
The plaintiff is the defendant B and C, each of which is KRW 10,139,00, and the defendant.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land of this case, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, with K 1563 square meters in Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The fact that there was no dispute between the parties, or that there was no agreement on the method of partition of the instant land, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, by the date of closing argument in the trial, can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including the provisional number).
According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of subdivision. Therefore, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.
2. Method of partition of the article jointly owned;
A. Under Article 269 of the Civil Act, when there is a claim for partition of the jointly owned property under Article 269 of the Civil Act, the court may order the auction of the article only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when the value of the article is likely to be reduced remarkably due to the division. Thus, the court is in principle to divide the article in kind, barring the above circumstances. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that, in the case of co-owners who acquire the article in kind above the value of their co-ownership in order to divide the article in kind, it is permitted to divide the article in kind in order to make it possible and necessary to divide it in kind, and there is no possibility that the value may be reduced remarkably due to the division, and there is no reasonable method to divide the article in kind so that there is no reasonable method to prevent any excess or excess of the value of the article acquired by each co-owner from the auction in order to do so.
I would like to say.
Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7620 delivered on August 28, 1990