beta
Text
1.(a)
Attached Form
Each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the list shall be owned solely by the defendant B.
(b) Attached List 3, 4, 4.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The plaintiff and the defendants are children of the network D and network E, and they are pro-friendly agents.
Attached Form
Each real estate listed in the list 1 and 2 is owned by the Plaintiff 1/10 and Defendant B 9/10, respectively, and each real estate listed in the attached list 3, 4, and 5 is owned by the Plaintiff 1/10 and Defendant C 9/10.
There was no partition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on each real estate listed in the separate sheet.
【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the existence of the claim for partition of co-owned property as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the above fact of recognition was established, and there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants as co-owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and there was no special agreement prohibiting partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff may claim a division of the above real estate against the defendants based
The method of partition of co-owned property is a litigation for formation, and the co-owned property is the subject of sole ownership through the exchange or sale of shares among co-owners, and the co-owned relation is resolved. Thus, the court does not seek a method by which the claimant for partition of co-owned property seeks a reasonable partition according to the co-ownership relation or the overall circumstances of the objects, such as the co-owned relation or the share ratio according to free discretion. It is recognized that it is reasonable to acquire the co-owned property to a specific person, taking into account the circumstances such as the cause of co-owned relation, the economic value of co-owned share, and the wishes of co-owners as to the method of partition, and it is recognized that acquiring the price of share to another co-owner does not undermine the substantial fairness among co-owners