beta
Text
1. The remainder of the sale price calculated by deducting the auction cost from the sale price, which is 4,344m2 from X forest land in Yangyang-si.
Reasons
The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet of shares, and the fact that no agreement has been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant real estate may be acknowledged in accordance with the purport of the written evidence No. 1 and No. 2 as well as the entire pleadings.
Co-owners of immovables may at any time demand another co-owner to divide the article jointly owned.
(Article 268(1) of the Civil Act. As seen earlier, there is no agreement on the method of dividing the pertinent real estate, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, as co-owners of the instant real estate, may claim the division of the jointly owned property against the Defendants, who are co-owners
In the case of dividing an article jointly owned by a trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, and if the value thereof is apprehended to be significantly reduced, the auction of the article may be ordered, and in this case, it shall not be physically strictly interpreted, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). The instant real estate is forest with a size of 4,344m2, and the real estate in this case is forest with a size of 4,344m2, and the total amount of the original Defendant up to 23m2 does not present any opinion about the appropriate method of spot-sale, and there are cases where the land area after individual share is extremely small after the spot-sale. Therefore, it is deemed practically impossible for all co-owners to find a method of fair spot-sale.
Furthermore, the plaintiff sought a partition of co-owned property through auction.