공유물분할
1. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be divided into joint ownership by the Defendants.
2. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff 12,500.
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants, as to the right to claim partition of co-owned property, are the owners of 1/7 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), and the fact that no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of each real estate of this case, which is the co-owned property by the closing date of pleadings
According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, to divide each of the instant real estate into the lawsuit, barring special circumstances.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. According to Article 269 of the Civil Act, when a demand for partition of an article jointly owned is made, the court may order the auction of the article in kind or when the value of the article is likely to be reduced remarkably due to the division. Thus, the court shall, in principle, conduct the in-kind division, barring such circumstances as above. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that it is permitted in the form of the in-kind division to allow the in-kind division, and there is no reasonable method to ensure that the price of the article acquired by each co-owner does not incur any excess or decrease in the value of the share. However, it is reasonable to interpret that it is permitted in the form of the in-kind division to allow the co-owner who acquires an auction by ordering the amount of money in kind above the value of the co-owner's share to pay the excess portion and adjust the excess or the value of the share.
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7620 delivered on August 28, 1990). B.
In full view of the above-mentioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding of the court's regular Eup, each of the real estate of this case is an agricultural infrastructure improvement project.