Plaintiff 1 and 14 others (Attorney Kim-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Shin Jae-pon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 7, 2013

1. The portion 3,848 square meters in the ship, which connects each point of 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 14 of the annexed drawing among the forest land of 1455 square meters, to the plaintiffs' co-ownership and connect each point of 14, 15, 16, 17, 16, and 14 of the annexed drawing in sequence, shall be divided into the part 3,848 square meters in the ship, which connects each point of 14, 14, 14, 14 of the annexed drawing.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list shall be sold to the plaintiffs and the defendants in accordance with the co-ownership ratio listed in the attached Table 2, after deducting the expenses of auction from the proceeds of sale.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty 1 and the Defendants completed the registration of share ownership transfer as of October 12, 1972, No. 21794, which was received on October 12, 1972, with respect to each of the 1/5 shares of Suwon District Court among the forests and fields 1455 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Nonparty 2 completed the registration of transfer of ownership for non-party 1’s share in the instant land (hereinafter “instant share”) on November 4, 200, the same registry office received on November 4, 200, No. 79117, Oct. 23, 200, for a successful bid due to a compulsory auction on October 23, 200.

C. On January 11, 2012, Suwon District Court 2012, rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction as to the instant share was rendered. The Plaintiffs acquired the instant share in the above auction procedure by sharing it, and the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 15365, Oct. 23, 2012, according to the ratio of shares in attached Table 2 in attached Table 2.

D. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land by the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen in the above facts finding, the agreement on partition of co-owned property was not reached between the plaintiffs and the defendants sharing the land of this case, and there is no agreement on partition prohibition as stipulated in the proviso of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the plaintiffs can file a claim against the defendants for partition of the land of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. The plaintiffs asserts that the land of this case may be divided in kind or by dividing in kind in the case of the land of this case, because the value of the land may be significantly reduced, it shall be divided by auction.

In principle, the partition of co-owned property by a trial shall be made in kind so that each co-owner may make a rational partition according to his/her share. In the payment division, the requirement does not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct the partition in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the co-owned property, and the use value after the partition. It also includes cases where even if a co-owner's co-owner's act is made, the value of the part to be owned independently by the division in kind might be significantly reduced compared to the share value before the division (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002).

C. In full view of the following: (a) the method of division: (b) the description of the health room, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5; and (c) the shape of the land of this case, the purpose and purpose of use of the land of this case; (b) the current status of the land of this case; and (c) the intent of the parties expressed in the proceedings of the pleading of this case and all the circumstances indicated in the records, etc., it is reasonable to divide the part of the ship, which connects each point of 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 14 in sequence among the land of this case, into the co-ownership of the plaintiffs; (b) the part of the ship, which connects each point of 14, 14, 18, 17, 16, and 14 in sequence, into the co-ownership of the defendants.

D. In the instant case, it appears that many Plaintiffs, who are not human resources, invested in the share of real estate through an auction and intend to recover the investment amount by means of voluntary disposal, auction, etc. against other co-owners. However, solely on the grounds that each share is different, it cannot be deemed that there is a possibility that the value will be reduced significantly if it is impossible to divide the share in kind or in kind due to the fact that each share is different

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant land is divided as indicated in the Disposition, but the litigation cost is not in compliance with the title on the date of the first pleading of this Court, and the decision of recommending reconciliation made on November 8, 2013 should be borne by the Plaintiffs who did not disclose the grounds for objection.

[Attachment List omitted]

For the purpose of transfer by judge