beta
Text
1. 63,372 square meters of forest land in Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-si;
(a) an indication of the Appendix 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 64, 63;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the appointed parties, Q, and the remainder Defendants, other than Defendant M, N, andO, and the network R shared 63,372 square meters of the Pream (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Pream (hereinafter “instant land”) at each ratio indicated in the attached list of equity interests. However, the network R died on July 28, 2009, and the Defendant M, N, andO, his spouse and children, jointly inherited the network R’s property at each ratio listed in the attached list of equity interests.
B. At present, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff (appointed party) and Q are co-owners of the land of this case, and the remaining co-owners of the land of this case may claim the partition of co-owned property of this case against the defendants who are co-owners.
B. The lawsuit for partition of co-owned property is formed. In principle, partition of co-owned property in kind according to the judgment is in principle divided in the extent that one can make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner. The court shall reasonably divide the co-owner's share according to the co-owner's share ratio according to the co-owner's common relation or the whole situation of the property which is the object of the co-owned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da2728, Nov. 12, 1991). The above recognition can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the items in subparagraphs 1 through 6 and the whole purport of pleading, namely, ① co-owner's co-owners other than Defendant G among the co-owners of the land of this case, an agreement was reached as to the co-owned property division in kind as described in paragraph (1). ② there are many seedlingss of the defendants' share in Section 1 among the land of this case, and the manager of clan S becomes a dry field.