The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/3 shares of forest E, 1,534 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to the shares of each of the 1/3 shares.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleading, which occurred between the plaintiff and the defendants, as co-owners of the land of this case, did not reach agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to co-owned share and the defendants to claim co-owned property partition as to the land of this case

In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, if it is impossible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind or if it is possible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind in kind, the auction of the property may be ordered if the value thereof might be significantly reduced, and the requirement of "undivided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is required, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the jointly-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, situation of use, and use value after the partition.

The phrase "if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" includes the case 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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009). In light of the following circumstances, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap's specific division method, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 8, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, or the overall purport of oral argument, the instant case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the goods in kind