공유물분할
1. Part 2 on the ship connecting each point of E, E, 3,97 square meters in order of 5, 6, 3, 4, and 5 of the annexed drawing.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants share the Plaintiff’s 23/104 shares, Defendant B/104 shares, Defendant C/104 shares, and Defendant D/104 shares, respectively.
(The land in this case was owned by F and Defendant D, and the Defendants succeeded to F’s shares, and thereafter the Plaintiff purchased part of Defendant B’s shares.
On August 30, 2018, the Cheongnam-do Governor designated the land of the ASEANwon as a H district urban development zone and publicly announced it on August 30, 2018.
C. On December 30, 2019, H District Urban Development Cooperative, an implementer of the said urban development project, obtained authorization for an implementation plan for an urban development project on the implementation plan for the said urban development project, and implemented a public inspection on January 9, 2020 regarding the standards, contents, etc. of the replotting plan.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant land, and the co-owners did not reach an agreement on the partition or the prohibition of partition. As such, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim for partition of the instant land pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.
B. The Defendants asserted that the land designated and publicly announced as an urban development zone, for which the replotting plan was formulated, is impossible to be divided.
However, even if the reserved land for replotting is designated for the land in an urban development zone, the previous land owner still holds the ownership of the previous land until a replotting disposition takes effect, and there is no evidence to prove that a replotting disposition was taken in this case, the mere fact that the Defendants asserted that the land in this case is prohibited from
No evidence exists to deem that the competent authority does not allow permission as to the division of the instant land, and H District Urban Development Cooperatives may receive the Plaintiff’s application for partition of co-owned property before a replotting disposition is taken.