beta
Text
1. The remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale by selling the land listed in the attached list;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a registration of transfer for the reason of sale due to a compulsory auction with respect to 473/964 shares of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. Of the instant land, Defendant C and D are co-owners of each of 95/964 shares, and Defendant F are co-owners of each of 301/964 shares.
C. There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the division of the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Co-owned property partition claim
A. According to the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff, one of the co-owners of the instant land, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners of the instant land.
B. As to Defendant C and D’s assertion, Defendant C and D asserted that since 1996, the land of this case was used as a road for the protection of ownership and passage through the public road, the exclusive use and beneficial right was renounced, and the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case through auction in such a state, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property should be restricted. In this regard, the ownership is a right exclusive control over an object, and there is a precedent of this case on the ground of “the waiver of the right to use” of the owner in relation to the relief of unjust enrichment law based on the so-called fair ideology, the logic should be understood as irrelevant to the original right to claim for the protection of ownership, which is an original remedy for the protection of ownership, with the content of ownership being realized smoothly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da228, Mar. 26, 2009; even if the Plaintiff renounced the right to use and benefit from the property of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff exercised the right of exclusive partition of the land of this case.