beta
Text
1. The amount remaining after the amount of 44,628 square meters of forest Fancheon-gun Hongcheon-gun is put to an auction and the auction cost is deducted from the price.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As to the forest land Fancheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer was completed in proportion to 1/80 of the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, and D, 1/80 each, 800, 396/800, and 400/80 each.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not enter into an agreement on the method of subdivision, and there was no special agreement on the prohibition of subdivision regarding the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. As such, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act. 2) As to this, Defendant E has a special relationship with Defendant B, Inc. as well as the joint purchaser with Defendant B, and Yangok-ok, Inc., with the knowledge that the minimum partitioned area of the instant land is 60 square meters, while the Plaintiff acquired 1/800 shares out of the instant land in small amount of the instant land through an auction to deduct Defendant E’s property by using such a system, and filed a claim for partition of co-owned property. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjustifiable.
Therefore, the plaintiff, as co-owner of the land of this case, filed the lawsuit of this case as the co-owner of the land of this case because the co-owner did not reach agreement on partition of co-owned property with other co-owners, considering that the claim of this case constitutes abuse of rights, and the co-owner can claim a partition of co-owned property at any time.
Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property of this case as abuse of rights only by the fact of defendant E's assertion (Article 268 (1) of the Civil Code) and it is different.