beta
Text
1. The sale price shall be the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the sale price, which is put up for an auction with the area of 58 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Ansan-si;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 58 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) prior to Ansan-si, Ansan-si, with the shares of Plaintiff 23/58 and Defendant 35/58.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a divided agreement on the instant real estate.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property based on the judgment on the cause of the claim is to be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the price division, the requirement that “it is not possible to divide in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, and use value after the division.
(2) In light of the fact-finding with respect to the real estate of this case, the real estate of this case is sold at auction to co-owners, and the real estate of this case is sold at auction to co-owners by public notice, and the real estate of this case is sold at auction to co-owners, and it is difficult to hold a consultation on the method of partition, including compensation for the continuation of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 1993). In light of the fact-finding with respect to the real estate of this case, the real estate of this case is sold at auction to co-owners, even if it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the real estate of this case into co-owners while maintaining the utility value of the real estate of this case, and the proceeds therefrom are divided by co-ownership.
Therefore, it is true.