beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. Defendant B, F, G, C, and Defendant (Appointed Party) D each KRW 1,640,316 from the Plaintiff;
B. Defendant H.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff owns shares of 11235/13040 among the instant real estate.
B. The net Q, which owned 1786/130 shares of the instant real estate, died on or around November 25, 199, and the heir died on or around November 25, 199. The heir is as follows: Defendant B (the shares of inheritance 9/54), Defendant F (the shares of inheritance 9/54), Defendant G (the shares of inheritance 9/54), Defendant C (the shares of inheritance 9/54), Defendant D (the shares of inheritance 9/54), Defendant H (the shares of inheritance 2/54), Defendant I (the shares of inheritance 2/54), Defendant J (the shares of inheritance 2/54), and Defendant J (the shares of inheritance 5/54). The shares of the instant real estate in consideration of each inheritance share are as listed in the separate shares of co-ownership.
C. The network R, which owned 19/13040 shares of the instant real estate, died on August 15, 1994, and the heir has Defendant E, K, L, M, N,O (the entire shares of inheritance are 1/6), and the share of co-ownership of the instant real estate in consideration of each inheritance share is as listed in the separate shares of co-ownership.
There was no separate agreement prohibiting division on the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and there was no agreement on the method of division until the closing date of the instant argument.
【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. In light of the following, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate is farmland, and the Plaintiff’s former owner acquired most shares for at least 10 years, and was engaged in sole cultivation. Considering the fact that it is practically difficult to cultivate only 160 square meters (per 14% out of the total amount) even if all the shares of the Defendants are combined, it is reasonable to divide the Plaintiff’s real estate into a way that the Plaintiff owns the goods in kind and compensates
3. Determination
A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
B. As a matter of principle, an article jointly owned by one or more persons is divided.