beta
Text
1. A ship which connects each point of 2, 3, 8, 7, 4, 5, and 2 of the attached appraisal map to Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, in sequence.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it is recognized that the plaintiff owned 156/321 square meters of the F in Ulsan-gun F. (hereinafter "the land in this case")'s share and 165/321 square meters of the net G (hereinafter "the network"), while the plaintiff died on May 22, 1996, the deceased's spouse, and the deceased's 3/9 shares, and the deceased's children inherited the deceased's share No. 2/9 shares, each of the defendant C, D, and E, and that no agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the defendants on the method of division of the land in this case by the date of the closing of arguments in this case.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may claim a partition of co-owned property on the instant land against the Defendants.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. In the method of partition of co-owned property, if an agreement is reached between the parties, the method may be selected at will, but if the co-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach agreement, the court shall divide the land in kind in principle, and there is no lack or lack of evidence on the circumstances that the above forest cannot be divided in kind. Thus, it shall be divided in kind in consideration of the evidence and the purpose of use of the land of this case recognized by the appraisal result of appraiser H, the present state of the land of this case, the parties’ intent
B. If so, it is reasonable to divide the portion (i) of the ship which connects the land of this case to each point of 2,3,8,7,4,4,5, and 156 cubic meters in sequence, and the part (ii) of the ship which connects each point of 1,2,5, 4, 7, 6, and 1 in sequence, which are owned by the Plaintiff, into 3/9 shares, Defendant C, D, and E, which are owned by the Plaintiff, and the part of 165 cubic meters in sequence, which are owned by the Plaintiff.
3. According to the conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.