beta
Text
1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of auction by selling the forest land of 15,366 square meters in the Seoul Special Self-Governing City, Jeonnam-gun.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 15,366 square meters of farmland C in Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) by one half each.
B. There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of dividing the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendant for partition of the instant land, barring special circumstances, such as that there was an agreement prohibiting partition, since the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach agreement on the method of partition of the instant land as of the date of closing of argument.
B. The partition of co-owned property by the method of partition is, in principle, divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to each co-owner's share. If it is impossible to divide in kind or if the value is likely to be substantially damaged due to the division, the proceeds should be divided through an auction (Article 269 (2) of the Civil Act). ① If the land in this case is divided in kind according to the share ratio, there is a concern that the property value may be significantly reduced due to the franchising land price, ② it is difficult or inappropriate to adopt the method of in-kind partition by price compensation because it is not present at the date of pleading without submitting a written response, ③ the Defendant also can be awarded a successful bid by participating in the auction procedure based on the price partition judgment, and the method of payment by auction cannot be deemed to be unilaterally unfavorable to the Defendant. In light of the above, the method of distributing the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds by auction is fair and reasonable means of share ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
3. If so, the conclusion of this case.