On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased shares of D 1/3 of the instant land by auction, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 2, 2016.

Ultimately, the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff by owning 1/3 shares and 1/3 shares, respectively.

Until the closing date of the instant case, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the division method of the instant site was not concluded.

Of the instant site, the market price is KRW 7,912,00,000 around the day of the closing of the instant argument for the portion of 1/3 shares owned by the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the real estate listed in [Attachment 2] List on the ground of the instant site (hereinafter “instant building”) is destroyed and has not existed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, 5, and 6, result of a request for appraisal to appraiser E by this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a partition claim with the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

However, since the building of this case is destroyed and lost and does not exist, the plaintiff's assertion claiming a partition of co-owned property against the building of this case is rejected.

B. The partition of co-owned property according to the judgment of the court below shall be made by the method of in-kind division, or by the method of in-kind division, if it is impossible to divide the co-owned property in kind or even if it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to the auction of the co-owned property.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 1993). However, the cause of sharing and the proportion of co-ownership share.