beta
Text
1. Of the real estate listed in the attached list, the portion 1,323 square meters indicated as a result of the survey on the cadastral status in the attached list is the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts [based on recognition: Facts without any dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Korea Land and Land Information Corporation, the YIK branch of the Seosan River, the purport of the whole pleadings];
A. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), on August 17, 1989, the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant was completed for 21/50 shares of 29/50 of the real estate registered in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of recognition, one of the co-owners may file a claim against the defendant, who is another co-owner, for the division of the instant real estate pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.
B. In a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property, the court shall order the division according to the share ratio in a reasonable way, comprehensively taking into account the co-ownership relation or all the circumstances of the property which is the object thereof. Here, the share ratio refers to, in principle, to the share ratio of the value according to the share ratio. If the shape, location, use status, or economic value of the object to be partitioned is not equal, the court shall order the
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s cadastral status survey performance on the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff’s cadastral status survey performance on the instant real estate 1,323 square meters, and the same performance as indicated 1,827 square meters as indicated 1,827 square meters as indicated 1,827 square meters as indicated 1,827 square meters as owned by the Defendant, taking into account the following factors: (a) the current status and the current status of use of the instant real estate, and the relationship and intent among the co-owners of the instant real estate.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.