- The Plaintiff, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) share the land of this case according to their respective shares in the attached Table of equity ownership in Gwangju-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

- The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have a separate partition prohibition agreement on the instant land, and no agreement on the partition method of the instant land has been reached until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and the above basic fact-finding of the right to claim a partition of co-owned property as a whole, the plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim a partition of the land of this case against the defendants, who are co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition shall be made in kind as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in form, if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably, the auction of the co-owned property may be ordered, and if the price is likely to be reduced remarkably, the price may be divided in kind. However, in the payment division, the requirement that "it may not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to make the partition in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, use value after

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). The evidence revealed earlier.