beta
Text
1. He connects each point of H 1,395 square meters, and the attached appraisal sheet No. 4, 11 through 14, 7, 6, 5, and 4, in sequence.
Reasons
1. Facts recognized;
A. The Plaintiff (Appointed) and the designated parties (hereinafter both Plaintiff and the designated parties) who are co-owners of the land indicated in the text of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) have sought a partition of the instant land from the Defendants, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on the method of partition.
B. Of the instant land, the Plaintiffs sought the co-owned property partition method in which the Defendants jointly own the part on the ship (B) indicated with the attached appraisal, and the part (A) indicated with the same appraisal.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), the result of this court's request for surveying and appraisal of the two parallel branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiffs, as co-owners of the instant land, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners. As seen earlier, the parties did not reach an agreement as to partition of co-owned property. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking resolution of co-ownership relation is with merit.
B. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition is in principle by the method of in-kind partition as long as a rational partition can be made according to each co-owner’s share. In light of the location, shape, and size of the land in this case, the share ratio of the parties concerned, circumstances where most Defendants did not dispute over the method of partition as desired by the plaintiffs, it is reasonable to divide the land in kind in the same manner as the order.
3. It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims in this case are reasonable.