beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
759m2 and 491m2 of Ma forest land in Changwon-si shall be sold at auction.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it can be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. The partition of co-owned property by judgment is in principle divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. The auction of the goods can be ordered only when the value of the goods is likely to be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind. In the payment division, the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's share.
in the case of a co-owner's act of dividing in kind, "if the value of the property is likely to decrease substantially, the value of the property may decrease substantially," also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner might decrease significantly more than the value of the property before the division.
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002).
In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence, it is deemed that the method of in-kind division is difficult or inappropriate to ensure fair division between co-owners while maintaining the utility value of each land of this case. Thus, it appears that it would be the most equitable and reasonable method to place the land at auction and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price to the Plaintiff and the Defendants according to the share of co-ownership.
① Attached Form 1 of the instant land, contrary to the Defendants’ assertion.