beta
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.06.29 2015가단116034

공유물분할

Text

1. Attached Form;

1. The remaining amount of the real estate stated in the list, which is put up for auction and deducted from the proceeds thereof;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendants attached Form

1. Attached Form, as co-owners of real estate listed in the list (hereinafter “the forest of this case”);

2. Co-ownership is owned as described in the table of co-ownership; and

The plaintiff is seeking to resolve the sharing relationship, and the agreement on the method of division has not been reached between the plaintiff and the defendants.

B. The instant forest land is a “forest mountainous district” located within a nature conservation zone, where development activities, such as construction of buildings, are impossible or considerably difficult, and where a co-owner dividess the forest land to own a specific part, some co-owners possess a forest land which falls short of the minimum size standard prescribed by the relevant statutes, etc., and there is no agreement as to who shares the divided part in a case where it is divided into a part exceeding the minimum size standard.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the plaintiff can file a claim with the court for the division of the forest land of this case jointly owned as co-owner, and since the forest land of this case is unable to be divided in kind in kind or the value of the forest land of this case is likely to be significantly reduced due to division, it is inevitable to sell the land of this case by auction and distribute the price according

In this regard, Defendant C, D, F, H, I, K, L, M, N,O, and P assert part of the forest land of this case by specifying the location and size of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, thereby forming a sectional co-ownership relationship, and thus, the claim for co-ownership of co-owned property cannot be allowed.

According to the statements in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the above Defendants agreed to specify the location and area at the time of division in the future when they purchased the shares of co-ownership of the forest of this case from "Mo C&D" (hereinafter referred to as "MoCD").

However, the above.