공유물분할
D. 2282m2 shall be put up for auction and the remaining money shall be deducted from the proceeds of sale.
1. According to the purport of Gap's 1, Eul, and other legal arguments, ① the land in this case is jointly owned by the plaintiffs, the defendant (the appointed parties) and the appointed parties, and their co-ownership shares are as shown in the separate co-owners and share marks, ② the plaintiffs, the defendant (the appointed parties) and the designated parties did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the land in this case by the closing date of pleadings. Thus, the plaintiffs may file a claim for the partition against the defendant (the appointed parties) and the designated parties, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269 of the Civil Act.
2. ① Defendant (Appointed Party) and sperm oppose the division of the Plaintiffs, and it is difficult to find out whether the Plaintiffs’ proposal to divide is a proper method of division (the Plaintiffs are no longer asserted and proven).
b) Considering that the land in this case is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind, and thus, it is the most fair and reasonable to divide the price through auction, considering the fact that the defendant (the appointed party) and the designated parties do not separately present a specific plan to divide in kind, and the fact that the registration of the provisional portion of the public land in the defendant (the appointed party) is established, and the legal relationship is likely to be considerably complicated if the land in this case is divided in kind.
3. The Defendant (Appointed Party) is not entitled to the Plaintiffs’ claim for partition of the jointly owned property either for abuse of rights or for violation of the principle of fairness. However, the above assertion is without merit, since there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the claim.
4. The land of this case is sold at auction and the amount remaining after deducting auction expenses from the price is distributed to co-owners' share of co-owners, and the costs of the lawsuit are ordered to order each party to bear the burden in consideration of the nature and progress of the lawsuit of this case. It is so decided as per Disposition.