beta
Text
1. The remainder of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale;
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case"). The plaintiff can recognize the facts that the plaintiff holds 1/11 shares of each real estate of this case, 2/11 shares of each real estate of this case, 2/11 shares of the defendant C, E, and 4/11 shares of each real estate of this case, and the defendant D has no agreement on the method of dividing each real estate of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, has the right to claim the division of each real estate against the Defendants, other co-owners.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. In principle, partition of co-owned property according to the relevant legal principles shall be made in kind so as to allow a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). However, when it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, if the value of the co-owned property might be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, it may be made by ordering auction of the co-owned
(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides that the requirement of “undivided in kind” includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide property, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of use after the division, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015). B.
In this case, ① Each real estate of this case is a house (the real estate listed in the attached Table 2) and its site (the real estate listed in the attached Table 1) and appears to be practically impossible to divide it in kind. ② While the Plaintiff wishes to divide the price of each real estate of this case, it is against Defendant C.