The amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of sale by attaching the amount of 2006m2 to the auction of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government.

Facts of recognition

According to no dispute between the parties, or according to the overall purport of Gap's statements and arguments, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the fact that the original defendant shares the F-W-gu Busan, Gangseo-gu, Busan, located within a natural green area within an urban area in the urban area in proportion to co-ownership in the attached list, the original defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the real estate in this case, and the fact that there was no agreement on the prohibition of dividing the real estate in this case, respectively.

A co-owner who has the right to demand partition of an article jointly owned may demand a partition of the article jointly owned (Article 268(1) of the Civil Act), and if an agreement on the method of partition is not reached, the court may demand a partition thereof (Article 269(1) of the same Act), and if it is impossible to divide the article in kind or if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably due to the division, the court may order the auction of the article.

(Article 269(2) of the same Act. Accordingly, according to the above facts, even if the Defendants did not consent to the division, the real estate in this case is subject to division upon the Plaintiff’s request as co-owner.

In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is likely to substantially decrease the value of the property in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered. Here, the requirement that the "undivided in kind" 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, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly-owned in kind.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). In such cases, farmland for which a project for improving agricultural production infrastructure under Article 22(2) of the Farmland Act has been implemented is either of the following: