공유물분할
1.(a)
[Attachment 1] 21, 36, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 each of the attached Table 21, 36, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21
The facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/9, YA 1/3, 1/6, 1/9, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6 of Defendant A and 1/9 of shares, and 1/9 of Defendant E were transferred to the remaining Defendants except Defendant B, C, D, and E due to the death of Y, and the detailed details were inherited to the remaining Defendants, which did not reach an agreement on the division of each land of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the division of each land of this case, according to the overall purport of entry and pleading evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number).
Therefore, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff may claim a partition of co-owned property of the instant land against the Defendants.
As to the method of partition of co-owned property, it is the principle that the method of partition of co-owned property by trial is made in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the shares of co-owners.
However, in this case, the plaintiff filed a claim for the auction division of each of the lands of this case, but wished to divide each of the lands of this case in kind while the lawsuit is pending, and the defendants also agreed to the request for the survey appraisal procedure for the division.
Since then on June 26, 2018, this Court decided to recommend reconciliation with the content of dividing each of the instant land in kind according to the commission of appraisal, but the Defendants raised an objection to the said decision by changing the attitude of the Defendants, and expressed their opinions that the Defendants want to divide the instant land by auction as stated in the original Plaintiff’s claim.
As to this, the plaintiff agreed to divide in kind without the first consent to the auction division, and conducted a land survey for division, it is the result of the above entrustment of appraisal.