A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 595 square meters prior to Seosan-si and 1,795 square meters prior to E, as indicated in the text of the land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding the instant land, and no agreement on division has been reached until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

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

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, one of co-owners of the land of this case, can file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the land of this case based on his co-ownership.

B. In principle, division of co-owned property by judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, but in the payment division, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation of the co-owned property, use value after the division, etc.

(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 by the sole 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). If the purport of the entire pleading is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the land in this case is impossible to divide less than 60m2 as a planned management area. The land in Seosan City is 595m2 and the share in the plaintiff and defendant B is 1/17m2, so it is impossible to divide in kind. The defendant Eul consented to the auction division, and the defendant C does not submit a written answer, etc.