beta
Text
1. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 9 of the [Attachment No. 1] Sheet appraisal.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) is registered in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, as shown in the separate sheet of “public share” in the separate sheet of [Attachment].
B. Until the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the division of the instant land and the method of division.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendants jointly owned the instant land did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. As such, the Plaintiff may file a claim for partition of the instant land with a court pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act. 2) At the time of filing the lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that part of the instant land was owned by specifying the ownership at the time of filing the lawsuit, but that it was a so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relationship where only the share transfer registration was completed, and sought a share transfer to the Defendants. In general, among persons jointly owned with sectional ownership, only the implementation of the share transfer registration procedure is permitted, and the claim for
(2) The co-owner of sectional ownership disposes of his/her own right to another person on the other hand, and disposes of his/her co-ownership shares on the register as a table for the specific portion, while disposing of his/her own right to another person, and as a true co-ownership share for the entire parcel as stated in the register, the co-ownership relationship with the third person is succeeded to in the case of the former, but in the case of the latter, the third person acquired co-ownership shares for the entire parcel of real estate and the relationship of sectional ownership expires.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68810, 68827 Decided February 15, 2008). However, the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of equity is against the Plaintiff’s claim.