beta
Text
1. As to each land listed in the separate sheet:
A. Of the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, the attached appraisal Nos. 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) are jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, respectively.
B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to divide the instant land, but no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of division until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.
[Judgment of the court below] The facts that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap 1 through 6 (including the number of branch offices), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The court shall, in principle, divide the article jointly owned in kind in a case where the co-owners voluntarily choose a method of consultation, but if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, and the court may order the auction of the article only if it is impossible to divide the article in kind or if the value of the article is significantly reduced if the article is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the article jointly owned by dividing the article into several articles in kind in accordance with the share ratio of each co-owner, and the method of division shall be determined by a reasonable division according to the share ratio of co-owner according to the co-owner's share ratio, rather than by the method requested by the parties, according to the co-owner's common relation or the overall situation of the article that is the object.
Provided, That where land is divided in kind, in principle, the area of land acquired by each co-owner shall be equal to the ratio of the co-owner's share.
(Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, 10190 Decided July 22, 2004, etc.) B.
Based on the above legal principle, the evidence of this court, the result of the appraiser C’s survey and appraisal, added to the purport of the entire pleadings, the location and area of the land of this case, and the present utilization status of the land.