beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff shall sell 223 square meters prior to Jinju-si I to auction at an auction, and the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the price is deducted.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. As to the area of 223 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff shares 1,890/7,028 shares, Defendant B’s shares, the network L 1,506/7,028 shares, Defendant C, D, F, and G, each 502/7,028 shares, and 140/7,028 shares in Defendant Jinju-si.
B. The deceased on October 6, 2014, and the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) succeeded to the shares of the network L on the instant real estate at the ratio of 1/3, respectively, and the Defendant (Appointed Party), H, Appointer J, and K were adjudicated to accept the report of qualified acceptance on January 14, 2014 by this Court under the control of 2014Ra603.
C. The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the designated parties did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, and fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding on the Geieung Office at the time of the truth-finding
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the facts found above, the Plaintiff, as co-owners of each of the instant real estate, may claim the partition of each of the instant real estate against the Defendants, the co-owners, and the designated parties.
B. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of branch offices), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as well as the overall purport of arguments, namely, ① since the area of the real estate in this case is wide and the number of co-owners is relatively large, it is difficult to find a reasonable method of in-kind division among co-owners, ② since a number of provisional seizures have been completed for the network L's share, in the case of the division in kind, the mutual interests between co-owners are complicated, ③ both the plaintiff, defendant B, and Jin-si want to pay for the auction, and Defendant H and the designated parties also have their share.