beta
Text
1. Of the land listed in paragraph 1 of the Attached List, connects each point of “the annexed Map indicated” 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the Attached List No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff owned 90/3960 shares; Defendant I owned 54/3960 shares; Defendant J owned 126/3960 shares; Nonparty G, Defendant G, E, C, C, D, and F owned 440/3960 shares; Defendant H owned 116/3960 shares; Defendant L L owned 242/3960 shares; and Defendant K owned 252/3960 shares.
B. The Defendant B inherited his/her inherited property solely due to the death of Nonparty B.
C. The parties did not reach an agreement on the partition of co-owned property as to the land No. 1 until the closing date of the instant case.
Attached Form
With respect to the land listed in the list No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) the Defendant’s reasonable reasoning owned the land, and on June 29, 2005, part of the share was transferred to Defendant B, C, D, E, E, F, G, H, and Nonparty M on June 29, 2005, each of which was transferred to Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and Nonparty M, and Defendant B solely succeeded to this.
[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the pleading
2. Division of the common property to be determined on the land No. 1 of this case can be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the common property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, in principle, by dividing it in kind. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, it can be done by ordering an auction of the goods only when the value might be reduced remarkably.
As to the instant case, the instant land can be divided in kind, and the Defendants do not dispute this, so it is reasonable to divide the instant land in kind, taking account of the current status of the instant land and the relationship between the parties, it is reasonable to divide the instant land in a manner that vests in the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the area ratio.
However, since the plaintiff seeks a size less than his/her own share ratio, it is recognized as it is.
3. On the land No. 2 of this case