beta
Text
1. Attached Form 1. The real estate listed in the list shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Of the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1. (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), each ownership transfer registration is made for shares of 1,870/3,870 shares in the name of the Plaintiff and shares of 2,00/3,870 shares in the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”).
B. The Deceased died on March 7, 2002, and the Defendants succeeded to the shares of the Deceased on each of the instant real estate by their inheritors.
As a result, the plaintiff and the defendants have co-ownership share as shown in the separate sheet No. 2.
C. There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the instant real estate.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 1-7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
(a) In principle, partition of co-owned property by trial shall be divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner; however, the requirement 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, use value after the partition, etc.
(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.
B. (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Delivered on April 12, 2002).
In light of the above legal principles, the right to collateral security is established with respect to the deceased’s share among each of the instant real property, and ② the Plaintiff is seeking a payment in installments, and Defendant C and D are not receiving a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and Defendant B was proceeding by service by public notice.