beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Y-si, Seopo-si Y26,701 square meters shall be divided as follows:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 29, 2003, Estema Construction Co., Ltd., a planning real estate company, acquired the ownership of Seopo-si Yan-si Y, 26,701m2 (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and sold the instant forest under the premise that the instant forest area was arbitrarily divided and sold under the premise that the instant forest area was developed. The Defendants purchased the specific area of the instant forest from Estema Construction and completed the procedure for share ownership transfer registration as shown in the attached Table.
Estema Construction Co., Ltd. was seized from the State on April 7, 2008 while holding 698/26701 shares among the forest land of this case, and thereafter the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said shares through the public sale procedure.
Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendants share the forest land of this case in the same proportion as the shares in the attached Table column.
B. The Plaintiff and Defendant N did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant forest land jointly owned until the date of closing argument in the trial.
2. The determination is based on the following circumstances: Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and each fact-finding with regard to the city of Seogpo-si in which there is no dispute between the parties, and each fact-finding with regard to the Si of Seopo-si, Seopo-si, the Jeju Regional Headquarters of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, and the purport of the entire arguments in this Court; in other words, the defendants specified the sale area by reporting the drawings provided by Estema Construction at the time of purchase of the forest of this case; the remaining defendants except the plaintiff and defendant N expressed their intent to divide the forest of this case as stated in Paragraph 1 of the main text; simple division according to these shares, not the land division, is deemed unnecessary; and the forest of this case is divided into the forest of this case and the shape of each land owned by the plaintiff and the defendants.