공유물분할
1. Defendant B, C, D, E, and F:
A. As to each share of 33/28707 square meters in the area of 8202 square meters before Seosan-siJ, Seosan-si.
1. The Plaintiff and Defendants shared the land indicated in the text of the lawsuit (hereinafter “instant land”) at the share ratio as stated in the purport of the claim, and the fact that the agreement on the method of partition of the instant land was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants by the closing date of pleadings does not exist between the parties, or that the agreement on the method of partition of the instant land was not reached between the parties, and the purport of the entire pleadings may
Therefore, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may request the remaining co-owners to divide the instant land, which is co-owned by the Defendants.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. The relevant legal principles have a unilateral right to abolish the existing co-ownership by filing a claim for partition of the co-owned property and to realize the legal relationship that distributes the co-owned property among the co-owners (the freedom of co-ownership), barring special circumstances, inasmuch as one ownership of the goods is divided in the form of a co-ownership of the goods, and the amount of one co-owner's ownership of the goods belongs to several persons. Therefore, the division of the co-owned property can be selected at will if the parties agree on the method, but if the property is divided by judgment because the parties did not reach an agreement, the court should divide it in kind in principle, but if the property is divided into the jointly-owned property in kind, if it is impossible to divide it into
(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides that the requirement that a subdivision in kind shall not be physically strict, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and the use value of the article jointly owned in kind after the subdivision, rather than physically strict interpretation.
(2) If the value of the goods is significantly reduced due to the division in kind, the value shall be reduced.