공유물분할
1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of sale, which is put up for an auction with W forest 115,58 square meters in Gu and Si/Gu.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each of the statements stated in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 5-1, 2, 3, 4, and 6-1, 5-1, 5-2, 3, 4, and 6-2, can be acknowledged.
The registration of the preservation of ownership of one fifth shares in the name of X,Y, Z, AA, and AB with respect to the forest of this case (hereinafter “the forest of this case”). However, with respect to the shares of X, Z, AA, and AB among the forest of this case, the registration of the transfer of ownership in the forest of this case was completed in the future of Defendant B, C (D prior to the opening of name), E, F, R, S, C, and U, and V, with respect to the shares in the forest of this case on the grounds of inheritance, transfer of ownership, sale, etc. of the forest of this case. On March 19, 1932, Y acquired the registration of the transfer of ownership in the forest of this case in the respective corresponding shares in the attached list, and Y owned the shares of Defendant G, H, I, J, J, K, L, M, M, N, P, P, and Q in the corresponding shares in the forest of this case.
B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer on January 12, 2010 with respect to the share of 348693/755015 (3/65), among the forest land of this case (348693/755015) for the reason of sale as of January 7, 2010. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the forest land of this case.
C. The Plaintiff wishes to divide the forest of this case into the Plaintiff’s ownership of the 5,334 square meters at the place of the ship connecting each point of the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 1, with respect to the forest of this case. However, the Defendants did not agree to the division method of the forest of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendants by the date of the closing of argument.
2. Determination:
A. In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may file a claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, for the partition of the forest of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. The partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be, in principle, made in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, or it is impossible or impossible to divide in kind.