beta
Text
1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;
Reasons
1. Of each real estate listed in the separate sheet of recognition (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), 16/26 shares in the Plaintiff, 2/26 shares in Defendant BA, 2/26 shares in Defendant C, 2/26 shares in Defendant D, 2/26 shares in Defendant E, and 2/26 shares in Defendant E, and 2/26 shares in Defendant F.
The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree not to divide each of the instant real estate.
In addition, there was no agreement on the division method of each real estate of this case until the closing date of the pleadings of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. In principle, partition of co-owned property in kind can be divided in accordance with each co-owner's share. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in form, if the value of the co-owned property might be significantly reduced, the so-called price division can be made in kind by ordering the auction of the co-owned property, but it cannot be divided in kind in the price division. It does not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after division, etc. of the co-owned property, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind if it is divided in kind." Even if the co-owner's co-owner's share might remarkably decrease in value if it is divided in kind, it includes cases where the value of the portion to be owned by the sole owner might substantially decrease the share value before the division (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da5824, Apr. 28, 2002).