beta
Text
1. A ship which connects each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 19, 20, 20, and 1 among the 21,286 square meters of land I miscellaneous land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As to the land of 21,286 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiffs and the Defendant currently jointly own the same shares as the attached Table 3, with respect to the land of 21,286 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. At present, there was no agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the method of dividing the land of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Plaintiffs, as co-owners of the instant land, may claim a partition of the instant land against the Defendant, who is another co-owner.
B. Division method 1) Division of jointly-owned property is, in principle, a method may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the jointly-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, 10190, Jul. 22, 2004). (2) Each entry of No. 1, 2, and 1, and No. 1, as well as the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments as a result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation, and as a result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation, it is reasonable to divide the
① Division as above in terms of economic value taking into account the shape, location, area, etc. of the instant land shall correspond to the ratio of shares between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.
② The division as above seems to be contrary to the intent of the plaintiffs and the defendant regarding the division method as shown in the pleading.
③ There is no evidence suggesting that the value of the instant land may be significantly reduced even if it is divided in kind.
3. Conclusion, the land of this case is divided by the above method, and it is so decided as per Disposition.