A. With respect to F. F. 2,450 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), Plaintiff A shares in 343/7350 shares, Plaintiff B’s 1457/7350 shares, Defendant C and D shares in 1225/7350 shares.

B. As to the instant real estate, there was no partition agreement between the parties.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiffs, co-owners, may file a claim against the remaining co-owners for partition of the jointly owned property pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is apprehended to substantially decrease the value thereof, the auction of the property may be ordered to divide it in kind. Here, the requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, situation of use and use value after the division.

The phrase "if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" includes the case 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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009). According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and all pleadings, the real estate of this case is the answer; when the real estate is divided in kind, the area to be owned by the co-owners falls short of the value as the answer; when the land is divided in kind, it is difficult for one party to purchase another's shares because there is no agreement between the parties on the transaction of shares; and the Defendants want to divide the real estate by auction.