beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall pay the remaining money after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the ministry at auction.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, D, and E, each 1/6 shares, Defendant F, and G at each 1/12 shares.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the division of the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim the division of the instant real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
(b) In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by a trial, it is in principle dividing it in kind, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably, the auction of the goods may be ordered to be paid in kind;
In this context, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, current use, value of use after the division.
The phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by the owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division even if the co-owner is a person.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the real estate of this case is a cement brick structure, a second floor of a cement brick structure, and its site, where it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to reduce the value of the real estate in kind. Thus, the division of the real estate of this case constitutes a method of payment by auction as prescribed in Article 269(2) of the Civil Act.