A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owns 3/4 shares as of the date of the closing of the instant argument, and the Defendant owns 1/4 shares, respectively.

B. As to the method of dividing the instant real estate, no agreement was reached.

C. The right to collateral security is established as the claim amount of the Plaintiff’s share in the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Co-owners of the real estate jointly owned may, at any time, claim a partition of the jointly owned property against other co-owners (Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the real estate of this case, has not agreed on the method of partition of the real estate of this case, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the

B. As a matter of principle, the division of the co-owned property by the trial method (1) is to be carried out in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable division according to the share of each co-owner. It is possible to divide the property in kind or in kind only when the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it is not possible to divide it in kind” is not physically strict interpretation. It includes the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property.

In addition, even if a co-owner's act of dividing it in kind is likely to cause a decrease in the value thereof, the value of the portion to be owned independently by the in-kind division may be significantly reduced compared to the value of the shares before the division.