A. The real estate listed in the attached list is jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff holds 58/104 and the defendant holds 46/104 shares, respectively.

B. Until now, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of dividing the above real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, one of co-owners can claim the division of the above real estate against the defendant based on his co-ownership.

B. 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 it in kind or if it is apprehended to substantially decrease the value thereof, the auction of the property may be ordered to divide it in kind. Here, the requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, situation of use and use value after the division.

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, Sept. 10, 2009). In the event that the foregoing real estate is partitioned according to the method of in-kind division, co-owners who gain a large benefit by dividing the parts adjacent to the road while co-owners who receive the division of other land are highly likely to suffer disadvantages to land use, and when dividing into money in kind, the area of each real estate is reduced and the area of each real estate is difficult to formulate a land use plan.