beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff shall sell the D 1,053 square meters in Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si and deduct the auction cost from the price.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/3 of each of the instant land jointly owned with D 1,053 square meters in Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.
C. Defendant B agreed to sell the instant land by auction and divide the price thereof, and Defendant C did not appear on the date of pleading without submitting a written reply or a preparatory document despite having received the written complaint of this case, which is the purport that Defendant C wishes to have an auction division.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above acknowledged facts, as of the date of closing argument of this case, the Plaintiff may claim the partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, barring special circumstances, such as the agreement prohibiting partition, since there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the land of this case.
B. The partition of co-owned property by the method of partition is, in principle, divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to each co-owner's share. If it is impossible to divide in kind or if the value is likely to be substantially damaged due to the division, the price shall be divided through an auction (Article 269 (2) of the Civil Act). The defendant C does not attend the date of pleading without submitting a written response, and it is difficult or inappropriate to adopt the method of in-kind division or price compensation, and the defendants also can be awarded a successful bid by participating in the auction procedure based on the price partition judgment. Thus, the method of payment by auction cannot be seen as being unilaterally disadvantageous to the defendants. In light of the above, the land of this case is sold at auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the price is deducted.