Plaintiff

In addition, the Defendants share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the rate of 563,926,668/62 of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants share the real estate listed in the separate sheet at the rate of 29,652,666/10, respectively.

B. As of the date of the closing of the instant argument, there was no agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the instant real estate.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, one of the co-owners of the instant real estate may file a claim for partition of the instant land against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

B. The partition of co-owned property, based on the decision on the method of partition, shall be made by the method of in-kind division, in principle, insofar as the co-owners can make a rational partition according to their shares. However, even if it is impossible in kind or if the price might be reduced remarkably as a result, the auction of the co-owned property should be ordered, and if the price might be reduced remarkably, the sale of the co-owned property shall not be divided in kind. However, the requirement that "in the payment division, it shall not be divided in kind" should not be interpreted physically strictly, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after

In addition, the phrase "if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" also includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by him/her is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

Therefore, it is formally divided in kind.