beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
In T, 14, 15, 16, 17, of the annexed Map No. 14, 1455 of T forest land.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Division of the jointly-owned property can be decided by the method of consultation between the co-owners at will, but if the jointly-owned property is divided by the judgment due to the failure to reach agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. The court may order the 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 of the property is considerably reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall decide to divide the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind, and to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property in accordance with the ratio of shares of each co-owner.
Meanwhile, as a lawsuit for the partition of co-owned property, the court may order the partition in a reasonable manner at its own discretion without being able to seek the co-owned property by the plaintiff, so if the property jointly owned by many people is divided in kind, it shall be divided in kind within the share limit of the co-owner, and the remaining co-owners who do not want the partition shall also be allowed to leave as co-ownership. However, even so, if the co-owned property is resolved by auction or division within the share limit of the co-owner who requested the partition of co-owned property, it shall be allowed to settle the co-ownership and recognize the sole ownership. Even though the co-owner did not want to maintain the co-owned relation, it is not permitted to divide the co-owned property in kind by resolving only the co-ownership relation between the co-owner and the other party and continuing
(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da8888 Decided July 23, 2015). Such a legal doctrine and “A”-1.