공유물분할
1. Sheet E, Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, E put up for an auction and deducts the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in the same proportion as the written order.
B. The instant land is farmland for which an agricultural infrastructure development and expansion project was implemented.
C. Meanwhile, as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, there was no special agreement prohibiting partition of co-owned property between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of partition claim 1), the Plaintiff is a co-owner of the instant land, and the Plaintiff may file a claim for partition of the instant land against the Defendants, other co-owners pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act. In addition, if the agreement on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff and the Defendants may claim a partition of co-owned land to the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, and as seen earlier, the fact that the agreement on the method of partition has not been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is not reached. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the land in the instant case, which is the co-owned property at the Plaintiff’s request, shall be divided. 2) As to the determination on the assertion of Defendant C and the Defendant D, the Plaintiff and the Defendant D did not have any consultation on the partition of co-owned property before the
However, Defendant C and Defendant D also have a telephone call with respect to the land division between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff after the filing of the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants wish to purchase their shares in the process of the instant lawsuit by proposing their own share selling price to each other is obvious in the record.
In light of this, although the plaintiff was involved, the lawsuit of this case.