beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who sold the F forest land 9529m2 to an auction and deducted the auction cost from the price.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants owned 9529 square meters of F forest land in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”) in the same proportion as the co-owned share sheet in attached Table 1.
B. The instant land is the blind, and is in the same shape as the attached Form 2, and no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the result of the commission of appraisal to the branch offices of the Gyeonggi Headquarters of the Korea National Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts acknowledged above, since the agreement on the method of partition between the plaintiff and the defendants, who are co-owners of the land of this case, was not constituted, the plaintiff is entitled to file a partition claim against the defendants as co-owners of the land of this case.
3. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property may be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the price can be reduced remarkably, and the auction of the goods can be ordered. Thus, barring such circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind in proportion to the shares of each co-owner, and the method of division shall not be determined at the discretion of the parties, but shall be reasonably divided according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219, Sept. 9, 197). In light of the legal principles as seen above.