beta
Text
1. Daejeon Sung-gu D Large Scale of 988§³;
(a) The separate sheet Nos. 1 to 18, 21 to 25, and 1, respectively;
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff and Defendant A, among the 988 square meters and E large 364 square meters, on each share of 364/1352, Defendant B and C completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each share of 312/1352, respectively, and the fact that no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of division of the said land until the date of closing argument in the instant case.
2. Determination
A. As a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property, the method of partition is a litigation for formation, and the co-owned property is to resolve the co-owned relation as to the objects of co-owned property by exchanging or selling shares among co-owners. As such, the court shall make a reasonable partition according to the co-owner's share ratio according to the co-owned relation or all circumstances of the objects, regardless of the method requested by the claimant for partition of co-owned property, regardless of
(See Supreme Court Decisions 93Da27819 delivered on December 7, 1993, 97Da18219 delivered on September 9, 1997, etc.). In cases of partitioning land, in principle, the area of the land acquired by each co-owner shall be equal to that of the co-owner’s co-owner’s co-ownership. However, in cases where the form, location, utilization status, or economic value of the land is not equal, it shall be allowed to divide the land in proportion to the ratio of shares. If the form, location, and use status of the land or economic value is not equal, it shall be allowed to divide the land in proportion to the ratio of shares. If a certain requirement is met, it shall be allowed to divide the land in excess of, or adjusted the economic value between the co-owners by means of spot-sale (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da69708 delivered on January 14, 2010).
In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul’s evidence No. 1, the appraiser F’s appraisal result and the intent of the plaintiff and the defendants, the method of spot division Nos. 4 through 6, and the appraiser F