The real estate listed in the separate list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) exists on the ground of the instant land. As classified by I through J, the Real Estate Registration Department exists, and Defendant C owns the I-ho building among them, Defendant B-ho building, and the Plaintiff owned the J-ho building.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the division of the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case

A. According to the facts of recognition of the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owners of the instant land, did not reach an agreement on the partition of the instant land. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1)

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property in kind can be divided in accordance with the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if it is likely to substantially decrease the value thereof, the auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment division, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” does not physically strictly interpret it, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation of the co-owned property, the use value after the division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009). The owner of the land of this case, who is the co-owned property, is not inconsistent with the owner of the building on the ground.