beta
Text
1. With respect to 341 m2 in the city of official residence, the annexed appraisal maps are linked in sequence to each point of 1,2,9,10,6,7,8, and 1.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff is a co-owner who owns 231/341 shares of 341m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in the Si of official residence, and the Defendant is a co-owner who owns 110/341 shares.
[Reasons for Recognition] Judgment by Publication Service (Civil Litigation Act No. 208 Paragraph 3 Item 3)
2. Determination
A. The facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the instant land as seen earlier, and the fact that there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the partition of the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendant for the partition of the instant land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, inasmuch as there was no consensus between the parties or by the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. Division of jointly-owned property by a trial on the method of partition of jointly-owned property is in principle divided in kind. As such, it is reasonable to divide the pertinent land into the land in kind. In light of all the circumstances such as the result of appraisal commission to the official branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the form, location, utilization situation of the instant land recognized by the overall purport of the theory of alteration, and the parties’ intent and the developments leading up to the current co-ownership of the instant land, etc., the attached appraisal among the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff with the land of 231 square meters in proportion to the portion 1, 2, 9, 10, 6, 7, 8, and 10 square meters in sequence, and the same appraisal is also indicated as 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 10, 9, and 2. It is reasonable to deem that it is reasonable to divide the land of this case into 110 square meters in proportion to each of the current shares owned or shared by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.