beta
Text
1. Each real estate listed in the annex 1 attached hereto shall be put to an auction, and the remaining amount after deducting the costs of the auction from the proceeds thereof;
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 2, and Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 1, as a whole:
A. The Plaintiff owned 2/5 shares, Defendant B, and C, respectively, of the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”), and the separate sheet No. 1/5 shares. The L, which owned 1/5 shares, died on April 12, 2007 and succeeded to the shares of Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, and J as 1/7 shares, and each of the co-owned share ratio (hereinafter referred to as “the share ratio of the instant co-owned land”) is as listed in the separate sheet No. 3.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of each of the instant real property by the closing date of the pleadings in the instant case.
2. According to the above facts of recognition that the claim for partition of co-owned property was established, since the plaintiff and the defendants, who are co-owners of each real estate of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, the plaintiff can claim the division against the defendants as co-owners of the above real estate
3. In principle, the common property shall be divided by the method of partition in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, but it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind;
Even if there is a concern that the price will be reduced remarkably due to it, the auction of the article jointly owned shall be ordered, and the price shall be divided by the method of the so-called payment.
The requirement is not a physically strict interpretation, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and use value of the relics after the division (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002; 90Da6746, Jun. 11, 199).