A. On September 1, 1994, J completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the attached real estate, and transferred 26.69/24/10 of the shares to Defendant C on February 10, 1995 by dividing them into several shares, and as a result, the Defendants shared the instant real estate as shown in the annexed sheet.

B. Although the Plaintiff and the Defendants consulted on partition of co-owned property as to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking payment through auction.

There is no partition prohibition agreement regarding the instant real estate.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition of the instant real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, 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 a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value would be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value after the partition.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). The real estate of this case constitutes one of the sectional ownership buildings, while the Plaintiff and the Defendants respectively occupy a space classified by shower, etc., but the co-ownership ratio and the area ratio are different.