A. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 3, 2008 with respect to the one-half portion of the land in this case.

B. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one-half shares of the instant land.

C. The Plaintiff operates a company called F in Gyeong-gun, Seongbuk-gun, D, and E, and part of the instant land is used as an access road to the said F.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, where part of the instant land is used as access roads to FF operated by the Plaintiff; where the instant land is divided in kind as proposed by the Defendant, there is a lot of possibility that disputes regarding tolls will continue later between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; where the land area of the instant land is divided in kind, the utility of the land is reduced if it is divided in kind; and the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s intent, etc., it is reasonable to divide the remaining amount after adding the land to auction and deducting the auction cost from the price

B. As to the Defendant’s claim for the land rent, the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 12,572,00 to the Defendant the land rent of KRW 12,572,00, as the Plaintiff used the instant land as an access road.” As to this, the Plaintiff claimed that “the instant land is a road for which the general public

However, the co-owners can use and profit from all the co-owned property at the ratio of shares (see Article 263 of the Civil Act). The fact that part of the land of this case is used as a access road to F, as seen earlier, however, the Plaintiff exclusively used the land of this case while excluding the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant used or took profits in excess of his or her share.