beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Attached Form
Each real estate entered in the list shall be put to an auction and from its price.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Legal doctrine sharing is a form of co-ownership of an article, and one ownership of the article is divided in quantity into several persons. Thus, each co-owner has a unilateral right to abolish the existing co-ownership by filing a claim for partition of the article jointly owned and to realize a legal relationship that distributes the article jointly owned among the co-owners, unless there are special circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991, etc.). Division of co-owned property by a trial is, in principle, a method of in-kind division, or it is impossible or possible in-kind division, in form.
Even if the price of the article jointly owned is likely to be reduced remarkably due to it, the auction of the article jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(2) of the Civil Code shall be made by the so-called method of division of the price. The price of the article substantially reduced due to the in-kind division shall be not only where the exchange value of the article jointly owned is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division but also where the value of the article to be owned by the co-owners is considerably reduced considerably due to the in-kind division as well as where the share of the co-owners would be owned by the in-kind division, even if the price of the article to be owned by the co-owners is not fairly divided, it shall be included in this case. Thus, even if
Even if the common property can not be divided fairly according to the ratio of shares owned by each co-owner in consideration of the location, area and surrounding roads, use value, price, ratio of shares owned by each co-owner, and current status of use and profit-making of each co-owner, the common property should be divided not by the method of in-kind installment but by the method of price installment.
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu194, Feb. 26, 1985).
Judgment
With respect to this case, the health care unit, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-4.