공유물분할
1. A ship which connects each point of 1,277 square meters of a road in Ansan-si, and of 1,2,3,8,5,6,7, and 1 attached appraisal maps.
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the land indicated in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “instant land”), and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant land, which was jointly owned by the date of closing argument in the instant case, does not conflict between the parties, or that agreement on the method of partition of the instant land was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of pleadings
According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who are co-owners of the land of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of division. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the Defendant, who is another co-owner pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. Division of the article jointly owned can be decided by the parties at their discretion, but if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach agreement, it is in principle divided in kind. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article can be ordered. The land in this case does not seem to have such special circumstance. Thus, the land in this case is divided by the method of spot division.
B. We examine the detailed method of subdivision of the instant land, and there is no dispute between the parties, or the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, and the result of appraiser D’s survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser D with access to the instant land. In other words, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are jointly used as access to the instant land, which does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s use of the instant land as access to the Plaintiff’s site of the housing complex construction site and the Defendant’s factory, even if divided as described in paragraph 1 of the disposition of this case.