A. As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant co-ownership of C amusement park, 989 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) at Jeju-si, and the Plaintiff owned 989/1739 shares, and the Defendant owned 750/1739 shares.

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

C. As to the Plaintiff’s share in land of this case, the provisional registration of the right to claim for share transfer and the right to collateral security is established, and the Defendant’s share in the land of this case

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

A. Co-owners of the real estate jointly owned may at any time claim a partition of the jointly owned property against another co-owner (Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the land of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim

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 the case of co-owner's property, "if the property is divided in kind, if the value might be reduced remarkably, it shall be owned independently by the division in kind."