A. The real estate indicated in the text (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owns 300/371/37, 200/3731 of the Plaintiff, 3731/37, 350/37 of the Defendant D, 560/37 of the Defendant E, 721/37, 70/3731 of the Defendant G, 70/3731, and 70/3731 of the Plaintiff’s share.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Co-owners of the real property in the right to partition of co-owned property may claim against other co-owners at any time (Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, the agreement on the method of partition of the real property in the instant case, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, has not been reached. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real property, may claim a partition of the instant

B. Division 1) Division of an article jointly owned may be selected at will if the agreement is reached between co-owners. However, in the event that the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to a failure to reach agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value of the article is considerably reduced if it is difficult to divide it in kind, the court may issue an order to sell the article by auction (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428, Mar. 26, 2015). Here, the requirement that “the division cannot be made in kind” is not physically strict, but is not physically strict, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location and size of the article jointly owned, the situation of its use, the use value after the division, etc.

If the division is made in kind, if the value might be reduced remarkably, the value will be reduced.