(a) The case where it is deemed improper to divide the co-owned land in kind;

(b) Site possession relationship in the case of sectional ownership by floor of one building;

(a) In a case where solid buildings are constructed on the co-owned site, dividing only the site in kind without excluding the buildings is considerably decreasing the utility value thereof, and there is a concern about problems and disputes arising from the legal relations according to the method of use thereof, it shall not be employed by the method of division;

B. In the light of which one building is partitionedly owned by each floor, all sectional owners, barring special circumstances, shall be deemed to jointly occupy the site of the building in an indivisible manner.

Articles 269 and 192 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Intervenor 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap4870) in the first instance trial

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the payment of money shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim concerning this cancellation shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are dismissed.

The part concerning the division of the article jointly owned by the court below shall be modified as follows:

The land entered in the attached list shall be put to an auction and one half of the proceeds from the sale shall be distributed to the plaintiff, and one half of the proceeds shall be distributed to the acquiring participant.

The costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances pertaining to the payment of money shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances pertaining to the partition of co-owned property shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the acceptance intervenor, respectively.

1. The defendant, on August 1, 1972, as to 4, 2, 6, 54, 54, 3, 8, 56, 8, 56, 56, 4, 56, 56, 56, 56, 197, 5, 58, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 1, 5

2. If the claim under paragraph (1) above is not accepted, it shall be divided into (a) and (b) of the same map indication (ii) and (iii) of the same map indication on the site of 56 of the same 54 number of 54 number, 3 to 56 number of 56 number of 8 and 56 number of 56 number of 56 number of 8 and (b) of the same map indication on the site of 56 number of 56 number of 56 number of 56 number of the plaintiff, and (b) of the same map indication indication 6,99,99, 1, 3, 500 number of 3 to 4 to 54 of the same 54 number of 54 number of 4 to 2 of the same 54 number of 54.

3. If the method of subdivision as referred to in paragraph (2) is not cited, 4 to 2 to 54 of the same 54, and 3 to 8 to 56 of the same 56, one 3 to 3 to 4 to 2 to 54 of the same 54, and one 54 to 54 of the same 54.

4. The defendant pays to the plaintiff an amount of KRW 1,415,129 and KRW 8,537 out of these amounts, from January 1, 1972; KRW 456,192 from January 1, 1973; KRW 475,200 from January 1, 1974; KRW 475,200 from January 1, 1975; and KRW 1,083,920 from January 1, 1975 to each full portion (in the original trial, KRW 1,083,920 from the original trial but expansion at the original trial). The defendant's judgment that the litigation cost shall be borne by the defendant (in accordance with the acquisition participation in the claim of KRW 1,2,3).

The plaintiff shall revoke the part concerning the partition of co-owned property in the judgment below.

From among the sites entered in the attached list, Section 1(b) in the annexed sheet, Section 5-7 Hobbebebes in the annexed sheet shall be owned by the plaintiff, and Section 2(b) in the annexed sheet, Section 3-1(a) and Section 54(2) shall be divided as owned by the defendant, Section 1(b) and Section 54(b).

The judgment of the court below that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances, and the defendant revoked the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the payment of money and dismissed the plaintiff's claim concerning the revocation.

1. The plaintiff's decision is examined as to the plaintiff's claim for water division.

On December 23, 1968, the plaintiff purchased 1/2 of the shares of each site listed in the separate sheet, and the defendant purchased 1/2 of the remaining shares of each of the above sites on December 24, 1971 and shared each of the above sites by the plaintiff and the defendant on December 24, 1971, and the takeover intervenor purchased the defendant's shares on January 20, 1975 while the lawsuit is pending, and the plaintiff and the takeover intervenor shared each of the above sites with one half shares. There is no dispute between the parties.

First, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on August 21, 1972 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to divide the above co-owned site into the same location as the claim No. 1 of the co-owned site, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the acquiring intervenor sought performance of the co-owned property partition procedure pursuant to this consultation. However, the testimony by Nonparty 1 of the lower court witness 1 is insufficient to acknowledge that the consultation was made as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Furthermore, it is evident by the purport of arguments between the co-owners that the agreement on the division of the above co-owned site cannot be formed. The plaintiff's acceptance participant asserts that the method of partition in kind is unfair since the building was constructed on the co-owned site. As such, the method of partition is divided in light of the health stand, the trial and the court below's results of on-site verification, and the whole purport of pleadings by the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 as to the method of survey and appraisal of the above co-owned site. Since the co-owner's co-owned site of this case's co-owned site of 56 lot No. 3 lot No. 56 lot No. 4 lot No. 56 lot No. , the above co-owner's co-owned site of this case and the building No. 4 lot No. 54 lot No. , the above co-owners and the building No. 54 lot No. , the above building No. 54 lot No. , the above co-owners and the above building No. 4 lot No. 54 lot No.

However, it is clear that the plaintiff does not request the division of auction, but it is obvious that the intervenor who is another co-owner should divide it in any form, as obvious by the purport of pleading, it shall be stated that there is no complaint in the exercise of the authority of this court concerning the division.

2. The plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is examined.

During the period from December 25, 1971 to January 20, 1971, the Plaintiff, without agreement with the Plaintiff, who is a co-owner, obtained the benefit of the party in charge of the land by exclusively owning and using the part of the first floor among the buildings on the above ground. Of the two sides due to the use of the above site by the Defendant, the part exceeding 1/2 of the Defendant’s co-owned shares is gaining profit without any legal ground, and thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff, who is another co-owner. Thus, the Plaintiff alleged that the benefit was returned to the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the land of this case with 1/2 shares from December 24, 1971 to January 20, 1975, and the part of the building constructed on the above site is owned by the same floor, and it is unreasonable to view that only the Plaintiff owned the part of the building on the second floor, which is the owner of the building, without any special circumstance, under the premise that only one-story owned it.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property is accepted by auction and division method, and the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment (including the part of claim for extension in the trial) is justified, and therefore, the part of claim for partition of co-owned property in the judgment below which concluded as above is just. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, but the part of the decision of the court below is altered according to the acceptance participation. Since the part of claim for restitution of unjust enrichment among the judgment below is unfair, the part of claim for restitution of unjust enrichment among the judgment below is revoked and the claim extended in the trial is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 89, 90, 94, and 93

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges’ advice (Presiding Judge) and Kim Young-jin’s high class