beta
Text
1. With respect to 9 square meters in Ha-dong, Ha-dong, Ha-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-do, in order of each point indicated in the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner who owns 39/99 of shares among 99 square meters in Hadong-gun, Sinnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is a co-owner who owns 60/9 of shares in the instant land.
B. The Plaintiff owned a building on the ground D, west-do, Gyeongnam-do, located on the north side of the instant land. The Plaintiff’s building owned by the Plaintiff occupies 37 square meters in the ship, which connects each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 1, among the instant land.
C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for cancellation of ownership registration under the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch 2018Gadan6989, but the said lawsuit was concluded on June 22, 2019 as the withdrawal order.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In light of the fact that the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking cancellation of the Plaintiff’s share among the instant land, it is reasonable to deem that consultation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is impossible with respect to the method of dividing the instant land, which is jointly owned.
B. Therefore, in light of all the circumstances, such as the shape, location, and use of the instant land, it is reasonable to divide the portion of the instant land, which was 62 square meters in the ship connected in sequence with each point of 1,2,9,10,11 and 37 square meters in the attached sheet among the instant land, into the Plaintiff, and to divide the portion of 62 square meters in the ship connected with each point of 9,3,4,5,6,6,7,7,8, 11, 10,10, and 9 in sequence, into the Defendant’s ownership. As above, it is reasonable to view that the economic value of each of the parts owned by the Defendant alone after the division, corresponds to the current share ratio.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted as reasonable.