The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) in proportion to 1/3 each.

B. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, one of the co-owners of the instant real estate may file a claim for partition of the instant land against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

B. The partition of co-owned property based on one trial on the method of partition shall be, in principle, by the method of in-kind partition as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible, if the price is likely to decrease substantially due to the auction of the co-owned property, the so-called price partition shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property to divide the price. However, it shall not be physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the partition.

In addition, the phrase "if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" also includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by him/her is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

Therefore, it is possible to divide in kind formally.

Even the location, area, and surrounding area of the article jointly owned.