A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree on subdivision of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the apartment of this case, may file a claim for partition of the land of this case against the Defendant, a co-owner, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property according to the relevant legal principles is to be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, and if the value of the share might be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it is impossible 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, size, use situation, and use value after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). Meanwhile, it is recognized that it is reasonable to acquire the relevant co-owned property from a specific person in consideration of the cause and proportion of co-owned shares, economic value in the case of division in kind, desire of co-owners, etc., and that it does not interfere with the fair ownership of the co-owner.