Compare a negotiated share buyout, physical partition with equalization, full price compensation, and auction partition using Korean co-owner shares, current value, parcel appraisals, exclusive-use settlement, costs, time, cash required, and valuation sensitivity.
Enter registered shares, cash actually available, and the appraised parcel allocated in a physical partition.
Cash equalization is calculated from each owner’s parcel value and normalized share.
These are planning values assembled consistently from your inputs. They do not predict the partition method or a court outcome.
Base-scenario comparison
Negotiated buyout
₩962,000,000
Loss vs reference: ₩38,000,000
Physical partition
₩938,000,000
Loss vs reference: ₩62,000,000
Full price compensation
₩907,000,000
Loss vs reference: ₩93,000,000
Auction partition
₩690,000,000
Loss vs reference: ₩310,000,000
| Option | Source value / cash | External cost | Time cost | Method transfer | Total net value | Largest liquidity gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negotiated buyout | ₩1,000,000,000 | ₩38,000,000 | ₩3,000,000 | ₩380,000,000 | ₩962,000,000 | ₩127,200,000 |
| Physical partition | ₩980,000,000 | ₩42,000,000 | ₩12,000,000 | ₩42,000,000 | ₩938,000,000 | ₩0 |
| Full price compensation | ₩1,000,000,000 | ₩93,000,000 | ₩18,000,000 | ₩400,000,000 | ₩907,000,000 | ₩180,200,000 |
| Auction partition | ₩750,000,000 | ₩60,000,000 | ₩20,000,000 | ₩0 | ₩690,000,000 | ₩0 |
| Name | Calculated share | Asset retained | Cash receipts | Cash outflows | Total net value | Cash required | Funding gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owner A | 60% | ₩1,000,000,000 | ₩0 | ₩427,200,000 | ₩572,800,000 | ₩427,200,000 | ₩127,200,000 |
| Owner B | 40% | ₩0 | ₩394,400,000 | ₩5,200,000 | ₩389,200,000 | ₩0 | ₩0 |
₩14,400,000
This is a planning transfer among owners and does not change the option’s aggregate net value.
| Scenario | Negotiated buyout | Physical partition | Full price compensation | Auction partition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower (₩900,000,000) | ₩862,000,000 | ₩840,000,000 | ₩807,000,000 | ₩615,000,000 |
| Base (₩1,000,000,000) | ₩962,000,000 | ₩938,000,000 | ₩907,000,000 | ₩690,000,000 |
| Upper (₩1,100,000,000) | ₩1,062,000,000 | ₩1,036,000,000 | ₩1,007,000,000 | ₩765,000,000 |
A 40% registered share in a Korean building or parcel does not identify a physical room or a precise 40% strip of land. Ending co-ownership may involve a negotiated purchase of the other shares, a physical partition with a balancing payment, full price compensation that places the property with one owner, or an auction followed by division of the proceeds. Each route has a different funding burden, duration, cost structure, and exposure to value loss.
This calculator puts those four routes on one arithmetic basis. It uses owner shares, a current reference value, parcel values for a proposed physical division, available cash, direct costs, monthly carrying costs, an optional exclusive-use settlement, and a lower-to-upper valuation range. It then reports aggregate net value, internal transfers, cash required from each owner, and any liquidity gap.
The result is a Korea-based planning worksheet, not a prediction of a judgment. It does not decide whether physical partition is legally or practically possible, which method a court would choose, the correct appraisal, tax, title priority, auction distribution, or whether an exclusive-use claim succeeds. Use it to identify missing evidence and funding problems before consulting a Korean lawyer, appraiser, surveyor, or tax professional.
Civil Act Article 269 allows a co-owner to seek judicial partition when no agreement is reached. A court may order an auction when physical division is impossible or when division risks materially reducing value. Korean Supreme Court decisions emphasize concrete review of the property rather than treating auction as the automatic result of failed negotiations.
Under appropriate circumstances, a court may award the whole property to one owner and require that owner to compensate the others for the proper value of their shares. The owner’s ability to pay and an objective exchange value close to the partition date are central factual checks. A stale appraisal should not be treated as a guaranteed court value.
A March 2026 Supreme Court decision illustrates that some earlier rights, including a qualifying provisional registration, may survive a co-owned-property partition auction and be assumed by the buyer. Mortgages, leases, seizures, taxes, provisional registrations, enforcement costs, and priority rules can therefore change both sale price and actual distributions. The auction result here deducts only the costs you enter and must never be presented as a court distribution schedule.
| Option | Who retains the property | Internal transfer | Evidence to verify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negotiated buyout | The agreed acquiring owner | Purchase price for every other share | Contract price, financing, taxes, registration, and debt treatment |
| Physical partition | Each owner receives a parcel or defined portion | Balancing payment for parcel-value differences | Survey, access, zoning, buildability, shape, appraisal, and value loss |
| Full price compensation | The owner selected under the judicial method | Proper share value paid to every other owner | Objective exchange value, payment capacity, and appraisal date |
| Auction partition | The successful bidder | Entered sale proceeds divided by shares | Sale discount, title rights, enforcement costs, taxes, and distribution priority |
Each calculated share equals the entered share divided by the entered share total. If every share is zero, the model uses equal shares only to keep the worksheet operable and issues a prominent warning. Whole-won amounts use largest-remainder allocation so owner amounts add back to the exact source total without silently losing a won to rounding.
Time cost equals monthly carrying cost multiplied by the option’s expected months. Direct common cost and time cost are allocated by normalized shares. A buyout or price-compensation acquirer also bears the entered acquirer-only cost. These entered estimates do not automatically compute Korean tax or professional fees.
The target parcel value for each owner equals the total of all entered parcel values multiplied by that owner’s normalized share. An owner receiving more than the target pays the excess; an owner receiving less receives the shortfall. The result connects payers and recipients into a practical transfer schedule.
Expected auction proceeds equal the scenario reference value multiplied by the entered sale rate. Aggregate net value subtracts entered direct and time costs. Loss versus reference is the difference between the scenario reference value and aggregate net value; a negative result is preserved if assumptions create a premium rather than being hidden at zero.
Owner net value equals retained asset value plus cash receipts minus cash outflows. Cash required is the positive excess of outflows over receipts. Liquidity gap is the positive excess of cash required over the owner’s available cash. Internal buyout, equalization, compensation, and exclusive-use transfers cancel across all owners, while external costs reduce aggregate value.
The default example uses Owner A at 60% and Owner B at 40%, a KRW 1 billion reference value, and proposed parcel values of KRW 630 million and KRW 350 million. Owner A has KRW 300 million available, Owner B has KRW 20 million, and Owner A exclusively used the property for twelve months at an entered monthly value of KRW 3 million. The resulting planning settlement for Owner B is KRW 14.4 million.
| Option | Aggregate net value | Method transfer | Owner A net value | Owner B net value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negotiated buyout | KRW 962,000,000 | KRW 380,000,000 | KRW 572,800,000 | KRW 389,200,000 |
| Physical partition | KRW 938,000,000 | KRW 42,000,000 | KRW 548,400,000 | KRW 389,600,000 |
| Full price compensation | KRW 907,000,000 | KRW 400,000,000 | KRW 519,800,000 | KRW 387,200,000 |
| Auction partition | KRW 690,000,000 | KRW 0 | KRW 399,600,000 | KRW 290,400,000 |
Under the negotiated assumptions, Owner A needs KRW 427.2 million in net cash and therefore has a KRW 127.2 million funding gap. Full price compensation increases the required cash to KRW 480.2 million and the gap to KRW 180.2 million. The arithmetic makes clear why an attractive aggregate value does not prove that an option is financeable.
Korean case law recognizes that, without an agreed method of use, an owner exclusively occupying a defined portion may owe other owners the rental-value benefit exceeding that owner’s own share. The calculator multiplies the entered monthly use value by months, removes the occupying owner’s normalized share, and allocates the remainder among the other owners. This is an internal transfer, so it changes owner-level values but not the aggregate net value of an option.
An agreed use arrangement, permission for free use, the actual occupied area, rental appraisal, necessary or beneficial expenses, limitation periods, set-off, and the pleaded legal basis can change the result. The tool does not establish entitlement or a recoverable period. Obtain Korean legal advice before making or conceding a claim.
The sensitivity percentage creates lower, base, and upper scenarios. The same factor is applied to the current reference value and every proposed physical-parcel value. Direct costs, monthly carrying cost, available cash, and exclusive-use value remain fixed. This design isolates the effect of property valuation without implying that every other assumption moves with the market.
When one former spouse wants to remain in a jointly titled home, compare a negotiated buyout and a price-compensation hypothesis using current value, funding capacity, use settlement, and verified transaction costs. Analyze the mortgage debtor and security separately.
Compare a simple area-based sketch with parcel values reviewed for road access, shape, zoning, minimum lot rules, buildings, and passage. The equalization schedule identifies who would pay after economic value replaces raw area.
Put an investor’s share-purchase proposal next to a conservative auction assumption. Separating internal price from external cost helps the owners negotiate the discount, time, and security without confusing a transfer among owners with destroyed value.
Add written quotes from lawyers, appraisers, surveyors, registrars, tax advisers, and contractors to the appropriate option. The comparison reveals which unconfirmed estimate changes the decision enough to justify another quote or a narrower expert question.
No. Aggregate value is one economic comparison. Physical feasibility, owner positions, funding, title rights, tax, and judicial discretion remain separate. An executable lower-value agreement may be more realistic than an unfunded theoretical result.
Area may be an initial hypothesis, but parcels with the same area can differ because of access, shape, zoning, buildability, existing structures, utilities, and passage rights. Use survey and appraisal evidence before relying on the equalization payment.
The calculator cannot appraise the property or determine a judicial value. Start with 100% only as a neutral scenario, test supported alternatives, and replace them with objective exchange-value evidence close to the relevant partition date.
Verified transaction, registration, appraisal, survey, legal, and tax quotes may be placed in direct-cost fields. Mortgage liability, security scope, priority, auction distributions, and owner-specific tax consequences are not simple common costs and require separate analysis.
No. It is a sensitivity assumption. Occupancy, title rights, bidder demand, appraisal, sale conditions, failed rounds, and local market evidence affect the actual sale.
The printout can organize assumptions, but it does not replace an appraisal, survey, registry, payment evidence, pleadings, expert opinion, or official court calculation. Preserve the source and date for every input.
No. It compares co-ownership arising from divorce, investment, business, family transfers, inheritance, or another source. Inheritance shares, estate tax, and estate-administration questions still require the dedicated inheritance tools and professional review.
The Civil Act version used here is Law ID 001706, MST 284415, effective March 17, 2026. The source check was completed on August 29, 2026 through Korea’s National Law Information Center. The provisions and decisions explain the calculator boundary; they do not turn the worksheet into case-specific legal advice.
| Source | Relevant principle | Calculator boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Act Articles 263, 265, 268, 269 and 741 | Share use, management, partition request, judicial partition, auction condition, and unjust enrichment | No decision on agreements, exceptions, claims, limitation, or court method |
| Supreme Court 2023Da217916 | Physical-partition principle, possible full price compensation, and current objective value | No prediction of compensation eligibility or appraised value |
| Supreme Court 2024Da277854 and 2024Da304053 | Review of economically reasonable physical division and monetary adjustment | No automated survey plan, feasibility finding, or judicial preference |
| Supreme Court 2025Da217707 | Potential survival or assumption of a prior right in a partition auction | No title, priority, buyer-assumption, or distribution analysis |
| Supreme Court 72Da1814 | Possible return of use benefit exceeding an exclusive occupier’s share | Planning estimate only, with no ruling on entitlement or period |
Replace the default example with current shares, supported values, realistic time, and written cost estimates. Print the owner-level funding table and valuation range. Ask a Korean lawyer about the feasible legal method and title rights, an appraiser and surveyor about value and physical division, and a tax professional about transaction-specific tax before anyone commits to payment.
Sources checked August 29, 2026. This calculator is not legal, appraisal, survey, title, tax, or investment advice.