There has been no agreement between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land until now.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) who is a co-owner of the instant land may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land jointly owned.

B. Generally, the division of co-owned property by judgment is in principle made in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable division according to each co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind in kind or if it is anticipated that the value might be reduced remarkably, the auction may be ordered to pay in kind. Here, the term "the case that can not be divided in kind" includes cases where it is not physically strict interpretation, but it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.).

Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) wants to divide the value of the instant land, while Defendant C wishes to divide the portion adjacent to the instant land in kind. Meanwhile, Defendant A and B want to purchase the share of the instant land at the market price, which differs in the position of the parties to the division, and the instant land is merely 141 square meters, and thus the area of the instant land is merely 141 square meters.