공유물분할
1.(a)
Of E 5230 square meters prior to Sinju, each of the attached marks 1, 2, 3, 24, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 1 shall be attached hereto.
1. At the time of establishment of the right to claim partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff and the Defendants owned one-fourth share of 1/4 shares each of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The fact that the agreement on the method of division between the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not lead to any dispute between the parties, or that the agreement on the method of division was not reached between the parties, can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to each entry in the evidence No. 1 through No. 9, and there is no rebuttal.
Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may request the Defendants to divide the pertinent land, which is jointly owned.
2. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property can be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owners divide the co-owned property through a trial because they failed to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. The court may issue an order for auction of the goods only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind if the value might be reduced remarkably. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property after dividing the co-owned property into several goods in kind according to the ratio of shares of co-owner, unless there is any circumstance
In addition, the method of division is not a way requested by the parties, but a reasonable division is made according to the share ratio of co-owners according to the court's discretion, depending on the situation of the co-ownership relation or the object of the division. If multiple persons divide an object jointly in kind, it shall be deemed that the division in kind is permitted within the share limit of the party's claim and the remaining co-owners who do not want the division are allowed to remain in common.
(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428 Decided March 26, 2015). In this case, the Plaintiff first applies for the instant land.