beta
Text
1. A ship that connects each point of 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 1 of drawings (attached Form 1) among 78 square meters in Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 41/48 shares of the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the text of the claim for partition of co-owned property (hereinafter “instant land”), and co-ownership of shares of 7/48 shares, and the fact that no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of partition of the instant land, which is jointly owned by the date of closing argument of the instant case, does not conflict between the parties, or that agreement was not reached between the parties, and the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry
According to the above facts of recognition, there was no agreement on the method of division between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who is the co-owner of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.
2. Method of partition of the article jointly owned;
A. According to Article 269 of the Civil Act, when a demand for partition of an article jointly owned is made, the court may order the auction of the article in kind or when the value of the article is likely to be reduced remarkably due to the division. Thus, the court shall, in principle, conduct the in-kind division, barring such circumstances as above. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that it is permitted in the form of the in-kind division to allow the in-kind division, and there is no reasonable method to ensure that the price of the article acquired by each co-owner does not incur any excess or decrease in the value of the share. However, it is reasonable to interpret that it is permitted in the form of the in-kind division to allow the co-owner who acquires an auction by ordering the amount of money in kind above the value of the co-owner's share to pay the excess portion and adjust the excess or the value of the share.
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7620 delivered on August 28, 1990). B.
Moderns, Paragraph 1, the facts of recognition, Section 3.