A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 991/3964 shares each of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, both of which are F 3964m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, but did not reach an agreement, filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, a co-owner of the pertinent real estate, and the Defendants, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. As such, the Plaintiff may file a judicial claim against the Defendants for the said partition pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

3. Method of partition of the article jointly owned;

A. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment is in kind in a case where a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. The auction of the goods can be ordered only when the price of the goods can be reduced substantially if the division is impossible in kind or in kind, and it cannot be divided in kind, but it does not physically strictly interpret the requirement, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use status, and use value after the division.

(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.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002).

As to the instant case, in light of the classification of the real estate of this case, the current status of the use of the real estate of this case, the location or area, the use value after the division, the co-owners' intentions, etc.