beta
Text
1. The remaining money after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling each real estate listed in the separate sheet;
Reasons
Under the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, the plaintiff shares 1/2 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") and the defendants share 1/4 shares, and there was no agreement on the division method of each real estate of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants until the closing date of the argument of this case, and there was no agreement on the prohibition of division of each real estate of this case.
Judgment
According to the above facts established, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may file a claim for partition of each real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, dividing it in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the value thereof may be reduced remarkably, by ordering an auction of the jointly-owned property.
Here, the requirement includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the property in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, use value, etc. of the property jointly owned.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297 Decided December 10, 2015). According to the purport of the entire statement and pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 1, considering the location, area, form, and the ratio of shares shared by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, each of the instant real estate is deemed to significantly decrease the value or use value, etc. when it is difficult to divide the instant real estate in kind or when it is divided in kind in kind. Therefore, it is deemed reasonable to divide the auction under Article 269(2) of the Civil Act.
In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.