공유물분할
1. A ship which connects each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 in order of 1, 2, 5, and 1 among the area of 1, 291 square meters in Papa-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff and the defendants shared a lot of land 19291.7m2 (hereinafter "the real estate in this case"). The plaintiff's share is 1/4, the defendants' share is in accordance with the attached Table 1 "the defendant's previous share", and the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division of the real estate in this case by the closing date of argument in this case. Thus, the plaintiff can file a claim for a partition of co-owned property against the defendants, who are co-owners of the real estate
The court shall, in principle, divide the article jointly owned in kind in cases of dividing the article jointly owned by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement among the co-owners, but in cases of dividing the article jointly owned by a trial, the court shall order the auction of the article only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind, and the price can be divided by ordering the auction of the article only when the value of the article might be significantly reduced. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment to divide the article jointly owned into several articles in kind according to the ratio of shares
The Plaintiff presented the draft subdivision as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article. In the event that the Defendants did not agree to the draft subdivision, the Defendants did not appear on the date of pleading without presenting a detailed subdivision plan despite having been served with the order to submit the draft subdivision as desired by the Defendants. In full view of the shape and size of the instant real estate, and the shape and value of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants through the division, it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate in kind as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, so it is so decided as per Disposition