beta
Text
1. Onboard (b) which connects 4,985 square meters of land in Pyeongtaek-si C, and 7,8,8,3,4,4,5,6, and7 of the annexed drawings in sequence.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared a co-ownership of 4,985 square meters of land in Pyeongtaek-si C, and the fact that there was no dispute between the parties as to the method of partition of the forest in this case, which was jointly owned by the parties, by the closing date of pleadings in this case, and thus, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, as a lawsuit pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. Division of an article jointly owned may be selected at will if the parties concerned agree, but if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, it is in principle divided in kind. It can be ordered to auction the article only when the value of the article is likely to be significantly decreased if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is divided in kind in kind. In this case, the forest land of this case does not seem to have such special circumstance. Thus, the forest land of this case shall be divided by the method of
B. We examine the detailed method of partition as to the forest of this case, and there is no dispute between the parties, the entry of the evidence No. 1, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraiser D’s survey and appraisal, namely, the part below the right side of the forest of this case stated in the attached appraisal is impossible to open access to the forest of this case with a buffer green belt. As to the forest of this case, the plaintiff is sharing 7/9 ratio, the defendant is sharing 2/9 ratio, and the reasons why the plaintiff and the defendant owned the forest of this case and its use status, use value after division, and the intention of the parties as to the partition of co-owned property of this case, it is reasonable to divide the forest of this case as stated in