beta
Text
1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;
Reasons
In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), the fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of the plaintiff, defendant B, C, D, and I with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as each of the instant land) on October 21, 2002, I died on October 21, 2002 and succeeded to his/her property by defendant E, defendant F, G, and H, who are his/her wife, and the facts that the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each of the instant land, which is public property, by the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, and there is no counter-proof.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each of the land in this case in proportion to the shares of the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, and D, shares of 1/5, shares of 3/45 shares of Defendant E in 3/45 shares (1/5 x 3/9), Defendant F, G, and H in proportion to shares of 2/45 shares (1/5 x 2/9), and the agreement between the parties on the method of partition of each of the land in this case was not concluded, the Plaintiff has the right to claim a partition of co-ownership against the Defendants
Furthermore, this paper examined the method of partition of co-owned property.
According to the results of the fact-finding conducted by this court with respect to the head of Jeonbuk-gun, the area where each land listed in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the attached Table is located can be divided into at least 60 square meters and the area where the land listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table is located shall be at least 1,650 square meters, and there is no counter-proof.
However, when each of the lands of this case is divided in kind, since the area equivalent to the Plaintiff’s 1/5 shares is less than the minimum divided area, each of the lands of this case can not be divided in kind.
Therefore, the method of dividing the price according to the share ratio between the plaintiff and the defendants after selling each of the lands of this case by auction is judged to be fair and reasonable.
Therefore, each land of this case is sold by auction.