beta
Text
1. Attached Table 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26, in the case of Seosan-si 2,674 square meters;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 23, 1989, the Plaintiff purchased 570/760 shares from G, etc. among F field 2,674 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 5, 200.
B. On June 5, 2000 due to the inheritance on January 3, 198, 19/760 shares in the land of this case were transferred to Defendant B, D, 95/760 shares in the name of Defendant C, D, and 95/760 shares in the land of this case, respectively.
C. There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to prohibit division of the instant land, and the division agreement was not reached until the closing date of the instant argument.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owners of the instant land, did not enter into an agreement on the method of partition. As such, the Plaintiff may request the Defendants, who are other co-owners of the instant land, to divide the instant land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
As to the method of partition, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the purport of the argument as a result of the appraisal by appraiser H’s survey and appraisal, namely, ① the land in this case is a typical argument used for rice farmers, which does not affect the value of each part of the land in this case that is individually owned as ordered. ② Defendant E asserts that the division plan presented by the Plaintiff is unilaterally favorable to the Plaintiff when considering the entry into the Plaintiff, etc., but the land in this case is accumulated in a bank, and the farmland in this case is connected with the land in this case and the farmland in this case cannot be deemed favorable to the Plaintiff. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to divide the land in this case by kind as described in paragraph (1) of this Article into the land in this case.
3. Conclusion Then, this case.