공유물분할등
1. 3,906§³ in Kimpo-si;
(a) Description 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 2-
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant are co-owners of E Forest E, 3,906 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”), respectively, holding the Plaintiff A’s 1653/457 shares, the Plaintiff B’s 1102/4557 shares, the Plaintiff C’s 1102/457 shares, and the Defendant’s 70/4557 shares.
B. Of the instant forest land, the Plaintiffs’ share was originally purchased from the Defendant, but the deceased F was inherited by inheritance shares (Plaintiff A3/7, Plaintiff B, and C 2/7) due to the death of the deceased Party.
C. On December 21, 2009, the Plaintiff A and the Defendant, representing the Plaintiffs, agreed on December 21, 2009 that the portion of “A” in the part 3,099 square meters in the attached Form No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, and 2, connected each of the instant forest areas in order to be divided, shall be owned by the Plaintiffs, and that the portion of “A” in the attached Form No. 1,2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 1, which are linked in order to each of the instant forest areas, shall be reverted to the Plaintiffs, among the portion of “B” part 807 square meters in the “B” (hereinafter “instant land”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In addition to the fact that the defendant does not dispute the division of the forest of this case as alleged by the plaintiffs, it is reasonable to divide the forest of this case into the land of this case and the land of this case, and the land of this case is jointly owned by the plaintiffs according to their respective shares ratio of 3/7, 2/27, and 2/37, and the land of this case, and the land of this case is jointly owned by the plaintiffs according to the share ratio of 207/183, 207/1883, 138/183, 138/3, 138/3, and 1400 of the plaintiffs and the defendant's share ratio of 1883.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and the nature of the claim of this case and the defendant's claim are contested.