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 of 46㎡ of D road in Sungsung-si.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a trial, in principle, it is possible to divide it in kind, or in the case of dividing it in kind or in the case of dividing it in kind, if the value of it is apprehended to be significantly reduced, the auction of the goods may be ordered, and in this case, it is not physically strict interpretation, but it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value of the jointly-owned property after the division.
I would like to say.
(Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009; 2013Da56297 Decided December 10, 2015, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015)
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that the land of this case was owned by the plaintiff and the defendants (hereinafter "the land of this case"). There is no agreement prohibiting the division of the land of this case, and no agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the defendants on the method of dividing the land of this case by the date of closing the argument of this case. The fact that the land of this case is smaller than 42 square meters (per 12.7 square meters) and less than 42 square meters (per 12.7 square meters) after the division of the land of this case can be acknowledged that the area after the division of the land of this case is very small.
According to such facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the land of this case is either impossible to divide in kind or in kind, and that its value is likely to be significantly reduced. Therefore, the method of selling the land of this case through auction and distributing the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price to the plaintiff and the defendants in proportion to their shares of co-ownership is the most equitable and reasonable method of division.
2. In conclusion, the land of this case is divided as stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against it.