beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s ownership of 2,587 square meters in the land for a stock farm in the racing-si, and 2,408 square meters in the land for a stock farm in the racing-si and 200 square meters in the E-si in the racing-si.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 equity shares each of the instant land C, 2,578 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and D, 2,408 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and E, 200 square meters (hereinafter “third land”).
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each of the instant land.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If a consultation as to the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. If it is impossible to divide it in kind in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the goods (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, co-owners of each of the lands of this case, who is the other co-owners, may file a claim for partition of each of the lands of this case against the Defendant, who is the other co-owners, pursuant to the main sentence of
B. The method of partition of co-owned property in kind 1 can be selected at will, but if the co-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach agreement, it can be divided in kind in principle, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the property can be ordered only when the value may be reduced remarkably. In this case, there is no special circumstance like this, and each land in this case is divided by the method of spot division.
With respect to the detailed method of partition of each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff owned the building on the ground of the instant land No. 1 and occupied the said land.