beta
Text
1. Of the 6,727 square meters of D forest land in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, the attached appraisal map is marked 1,2,3,4,5,23,24,25,26,27,28,29, 30,31, 32, 33, 24, 35.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared Plaintiff 3,305/6,149 shares, Defendants B2,240/6,149 shares, and Defendant C604/6,149 shares, even though the area of the instant land was originally 6,149 square meters of forests and fields, but was corrected to 6,727 square meters of forests and fields on November 1, 2017.
B. Until the closing date of the instant argument, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 6-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim the partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.
B. The method of partition of co-owned property (1) is that the co-owners may choose the method of partition at will, but if the co-owners fail to reach an agreement, if the co-owned property is divided by judgment, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If the co-owned property is divided in kind or if the value of the property is considerably reduced if it is not possible to divide it in kind, the court may order the auction of the property. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall make a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several items in kind at the share of each co-owner, and the method of partition shall be made by a reasonable division according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court, rather than by the method requested by the parties concerned, according to the co-owned relation or all the circumstances of the goods which are the objects thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, Jul. 22, 2004).