beta
Text
1. The sale of 486.2m2m2 in racing-si D shall be put to an auction, and the remaining money shall be obtained by deducting the auction costs and taxes from the price.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff owns each share of 649.7/1458.2, Defendant B’s share of 1/3, and Defendant C’s share of 322.7/1458.2, respectively.
B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on September 15, 1980 with respect to 1/3 shares out of the instant land on January 15, 1982. On July 27, 2006, the Plaintiff held the ownership of shares until now since it completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on the same date with respect to 54.5/486.2 shares out of Nonparty E’s 1/3 shares.
C. Since Defendant B purchased 1/3 of the instant land during the voluntary auction procedure on June 22, 2004, Defendant B retains its share ownership until now.
Since Defendant C succeeded to Nonparty E’s ownership of equity on November 5, 2007, the ownership of equity has been owned until now since it succeeded to Nonparty E’s ownership of equity on November 7, 1458.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the primary claim is the Plaintiff’s ownership of part (A) of 230 square meters in the ship connecting the instant land in sequence with each of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, and the part (B) of 256.2 square meters in the order of each of the items indicated in the same drawing Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 3 are divided into the Defendants’ ownership in the ratio of shares.
B) On the other hand, Defendant B asserts that among the above (b) parts, the area of the Plaintiff’s share should be owned by the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, Defendant C did not submit any opinion despite being served with a duplicate of the complaint, and did not appear on the date of pleading.
2. The plaintiff and defendant B's position are in conflict with each other, the plaintiff is currently residing in Australia and it is difficult for the plaintiff to attend this court, and according to the document of October 11, 2018 submitted by the plaintiff's attorney after the closing of argument, the plaintiff also has a division agreement in reality.