beta
Text
1.The remaining amount of the land listed in the separate sheet after selling it for auction and deducting the auction cost from the price;
Reasons
Facts of recognition
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap 1-1-1-3, 2-5, the plaintiff, defendant, C, and D shall have 2/11 shares out of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the land of this case") on January 31, 2018, and Eul shall have completed the registration of ownership transfer for 3/11 shares due to inheritance on March 18, 200, respectively. The plaintiff shall have received 7/11 shares out of the land of this case from C, D, and E (2/11 shares from C, and 3/11 shares from E), and shall have completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 31, 2018 (the final plaintiff's share 9/11, the defendant's share 2/11 of the defendant's share), and the defendant, who filed a claim for partition of co-owned property of this case, without holding consultation with the plaintiff and the defendant on the date for pleading of co-owned property of this case.
Judgment
According to the above facts of recognition, there was no agreement as to the partition of co-owned property on the land of this case.
In addition, Article 22(2)3 of the Farmland Act provides that “The farmland for which a project for improving agricultural production infrastructure has been implemented shall not be divided, except where the area of each parcel after division is divided into more than 2,000 square meters.” The farmland for which a project for improving agricultural production infrastructure has been implemented under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, the land category of which is “finite,” is no dispute between the parties concerned, and the land area of the instant land is equal to 344 square meters (103 square meters and 34 square meters) and thus, it is impossible to divide the land of this case in kind pursuant to the above provisions of the Farmland Act, so it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the land in kind.
Therefore, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price by selling the land in this case by auction to the ratio of shares of the plaintiff and the defendant.
In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.