beta
Text
1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the 51,950 square meters of forest I forest land in Si/Gun to an auction.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff shares 29750 square meters of the I Forest Land 51,950 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) in 5215, Defendant C’s 7455/5, Defendant B’s 7455/5215, Defendant D, the heir of the networkJ, 4970/10, Defendant E’s 2485/104230, Defendant F, the 2485/104230, the 2485/100, the 2485/104230, the 2485/104230, and the 2485/104230 shares.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant forest.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, one of co-owners, based on his co-ownership share, may request the Defendants to divide the forest of this case.
B. The method of partition of an article jointly owned by a trial is, in principle, a method of partition in kind. Even if it is impossible or possible in kind, if the price of the article jointly owned is likely to decrease substantially, the method of partition should be followed by the so-called method of payment by ordering the auction of the article jointly owned, and the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" as the premise of the price division should not be strictly interpreted in physical sense, but should include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature of the article jointly owned, location or area, the situation of use, and the use value after the partition.
In addition, the phrase "where the value of the portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" also includes cases where the value of the portion to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division, even if the co-owner's person is a co-owner.
C. However, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers).