beta
Text
1. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be owned individually by the plaintiff by dividing it;
2. The plaintiff is the defendant 15,292.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as a whole, share 311/350 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), and the Defendant shared at the ratio of 350/350 shares, and no partition agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding each of the real estate of this case, and no partition agreement as to each of the real estate of this case exists.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may request the Defendant, a co-owner of the other co-owner, to divide each real estate of this case pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. If it is possible to divide the article jointly owned by the price compensation in kind, the method of the division of the article jointly owned may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial because no agreement is reached, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is made in kind, the price may be reduced remarkably, the auction of the article may be ordered.
In addition, the lawsuit for partition of co-owned property is a litigation for formation, and it means to resolve the co-ownership relation as to the objects of co-ownership by exchanging or selling shares among co-owners. Thus, the court shall make a rational partition according to the co-owner's share ratio according to the co-ownership relation or all the circumstances of the objects of co-owned property at free discretion, not by the method of seeking co-owned property partition.
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da27819 delivered on December 7, 1993, and Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219 delivered on September 9, 1997, etc.). Furthermore, the cause of the sharing relationship and the proportion of co-ownership shares.