A. F. 446 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) are jointly owned by the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C. 3/5, respectively.

B. Until the date of the closing of the instant argument, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a partition claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). Regarding the instant case, the health stand, the real estate of this case is abutting on the road, and there seems to be a big difference between the part abutting on the road and the use value of the portion not so. The co-ownership right holder of this case, including other real estate than the instant real estate, has experienced disputes over the partition of co-owned property for a considerable period of time. Thus, the co-ownership right holder of this case, including other real estate than the instant real estate, has derived