(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.4.10.선고 2012가합34300 판결

1. The ship (part 2,256 square meters) connects 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 11, and 3 of the annexed drawings among the 3, 562 square meters of forests and fields in succession (part 2,256 square meters to the Plaintiff (designated parties) 3/2256, Kim ○○ 712.4/2256, △△○ 2256, △△△△ 2256, △△△△△ 256, △△△△△ 256, △△△△△ 29, △△△△ 256, △△△△ 295, △△△△△ 256, △△△△△ 256, 208, 208, 251, 2728/16, 256, 278/16, 257, and 18 of the Defendant alone.

2. The plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties shall pay to each defendant 149,002,200 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following this judgment to the day of full payment.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 70% is borne by Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

Purport of claim

Gwangju Mine-gu* Dong * Dong * 3, 562 of forest land 3, 562 which connects the respective points in the separate sheet No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 11, and 3 in sequence, the part (1) which connects the part of the plaintiff (designated parties) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") to co-ownership of shares in the same map No. 1, 2, 11, 12, 8, 9, 10, and 1 of the same drawing No. 3, 562, is to be divided into the defendant's sole ownership.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Gwangju Mine-gu* Dong * Dong * 3,562 square meters of forest land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) are jointly owned by the plaintiff, etc. and the defendant according to the following ratio of shares:

A person shall be appointed.

B. Even until the date of the closing of the instant argument, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendant on the method of dividing the instant land.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Claim for partition of co-owned property

According to the above facts, the plaintiff et al., a co-owner, may file a claim for the partition of the land of this case against the defendant who is another co-owner pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

(b) Method of partition of co-owned property;

The case of partition of co-owned property, as a lawsuit for the formation of co-owned property, refers to the resolution of the co-ownership of the objects of co-ownership through the exchange of shares between co-owners or the sale or purchase of the objects of co-owned property. As such, the court shall make a rational partition according to the proportion of shares of the co-owners according to the common ownership or the situation of the objects which are the objects of co-owned property at free discretion, not by the method requested by the claimant for partition of co-owned property. On the other hand, in the case of division of the objects of co-owned property, the area of the land acquired by each co-owner should be equal to the proportion of shares in common, but it is not necessarily required to be divided by such method. If the form or location of the co-owned property is not equal, it is allowed to divide the economic value equivalent to the proportion of shares in consideration of the various circumstances, and if certain requirements are met, it is permitted to divide the property in kind by adjusting the economic value of the co-owner in cash (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da14.

6) In the instant case, Gap 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7: (1) the Plaintiff et al. divided the land in kind and wish to maintain their co-ownership; (2) the Plaintiff et al. divided the land in 00 and 7 (2) the size of the land in 00 and 4) the market value of the land in 00 to be divided into 6: (3) the Plaintiff et al. (4) the Plaintiff et al. divided the land in 0; (4) the Plaintiff et al. divided the land in 0 to 6: (5) the size of the land in 0 and 7; (5) the Plaintiff et al., the Plaintiff et al. divided the land in 6; (5) the Plaintiff et al., the size of the land in 0 and 7) the market value of the land in 00 are likely to be adjusted by dividing the land in kind; and (5) the Plaintiff et al., the market value of the land in 2014.

However, when this judgment becomes final and conclusive, a person who pays the money can acquire ownership in his own name without cooperation from the counter party, but considering the circumstances that he would obtain satisfaction only after receiving the above compensation from the counter party, it is reasonable in light of the principle of equity to impose liability for delay in the event of delay in the above execution due to the following day after this decision becomes final and conclusive with respect to the obligation to pay the money given to the person who received the money, which is paid the money from the counter party. Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the real part of the land division in this case is transferred by the plaintiff et al. to the defendant as to the part (1) of the land in this case and the purpose of partition of co-owned property cannot be reached unless the plaintiff et al.'s share is transferred, the compensation payment obligation against the defendant such as the plaintiff et al. is indivisible.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part of the instant land (1) is owned by the Plaintiff, etc. at the ratio specified in Paragraph (1) of this Article. The portion of the instant land is divided into the Defendant’s sole ownership, and the Plaintiff, etc. is obligated to pay to each Defendant the aforementioned compensation of KRW 149,002, 200, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the date this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for partition of co-owned property of this case shall be determined as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.