[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property in kind in accordance with the relevant legal principles, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is apprehended that its value will be significantly reduced, the auction of the article may be ordered to make a payment in kind. Here, the requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly-owned in kind.

I would like to say.

(Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 Decided November 12, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

In the instant case, in light of the relevant legal principles, the following circumstances revealed in light of the health stand, Gap evidence No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleading, namely, ① the land in the instant case, which is a separate parcel of land, is adjacent to the fact that there exists land in the area of the instant land, ② the area of the instant land is adjacent to the contribution of only part of the southwestwest-gun, which is a separate parcel of land, ③ the area of the instant land is equal to 10,682 square meters; ④ the co-owners of the instant land are seven persons among the original and the defendants, ④ the total amount of shares is 3,231 persons, ⑤ the ownership of the original and the Defendant is 3,231 persons, and ⑤ the ownership of the original and the Defendant is different.

3. According to the conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by ordering the payment by auction for the land of this case.