Attached Form

There are buildings listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land listed in paragraph (1) of the list (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiff owns 6/14 shares, and the Defendants own 4/14 shares, respectively.

There is no partition prohibition agreement on the land and building of this case, and no agreement on the partition method of the land of this case has been reached until the date of closing the argument of this case.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the fact that the lawsuit for partition of co-owned property occurred as a whole, the plaintiff, who is a co-owner of the land and building of this case, may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the defendants, other co-owners pursuant to Article 269

In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by the judgment of the method of partition, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered, and in this case, the "undivided in kind" requirement shall not be physically strictly interpreted, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use of the article jointly-owned, the use value after the division, etc.

The phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned independently by the co-owner may be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division even if the co-owner's share is divided in kind.

In the case of dividing the article jointly owned by a trial, the court is in principle dividing it in kind, so it is inevitable to divide it into money, and without an objective and specific deliberation on the requirements that it is inevitable to pay it.