1. 2,239m2,239m2, Namjin-gun L:

가. 별지 감정도 표시 ㄱ, ㄴ, ㄷ, ㄴ{} ^{1}, ㄷ{} ^{1}, ㄹ{} ^{1},...

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant A, D, E, and I share 63/41 shares, shares in Defendant B, Defendant F, G, and H, shares in 14/41 shares, shares in 21/41 shares, shares in 21/441 shares, and shares in 27/441 shares in 27/441 shares, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleading in the statement in subparagraph 1 of this Article, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in the statement in subparagraph 1 of this Article.

2. Judgment on the claim for partition of co-owned property

A. In addition to the circumstances where there was no partition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as to the instant land until the date of closing argument in the facts underlying the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the

B. In the case of a claim for partition of co-owned property under Article 269 of the Civil Act, the court may order the auction of the goods when it is impossible to divide the property in kind or when the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably due to the division. Thus, in principle, the court may divide the property in kind, barring the above circumstances. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that it is permitted to divide the property in kind in order to divide the property in kind in order to ensure that there is no reasonable method to divide the value of the property acquired by each co-owner in kind in order to prevent any excess or decrease in the value of the property and the value of the share. However, if there are special circumstances such as cases where it is more unreasonable to divide the property in kind, it is reasonable to interpret that the co-owner who acquires the property in kind above the value of the co-owner's share in order to pay the price for the excess portion in order to adjust it in kind in the form of the

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7620 delivered on August 28, 1990).