A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants at the share ratio listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. There was no division agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the instant real estate, and there was no division prohibition agreement.

[Ground] Defendant B, C, D, and K: The judgment by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) against Defendant E, F, G, H, I, J, and L: The judgment by deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim the division of the instant real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

B. In principle, the method of partition in kind can be divided in kind according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind in kind or if it is likely that the value might be significantly reduced if the division in kind is made in kind, the auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment division, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value after the division, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant M, asserting that the instant case was divided in kind by partial value compensation, submitted a specific method of division, or the survey and appraisal necessary therefor.