Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, for the partition of the instant land pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. If, through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, the co-owned property is divided in kind, in principle, or in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind, or if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably, an auction of the co-owned property may be ordered to be paid in installments;

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides that the requirement of “undivided in kind” includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide property, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of use after the division, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015). In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2-1 and No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 1-2 of the pleading, the instant land is deemed as either a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to seek fair division among co-owners with respect to the method of spot distribution, and thus, it appears that dividing the price through an auction is the most equitable and reasonable method of division.

① Since the provisional attachment registration of Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) and the provisional attachment registration of the National Health Insurance Corporation is completed with respect to the Defendant’s share in the instant land, it is practically difficult to divide the instant land in kind without cancelling the registration of provisional attachment and the registration of seizure.

② The Plaintiff and the Defendant are attached to the instant land.