A. With respect to Plaintiff 1,266m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in proportion to Plaintiff 31.65/266, L 2/1, and Defendant B 1,266/35, respectively.

B. L died on October 29, 201, and his heir died and there is Defendant C, E, F, G, H, I, and J, the spouse of Defendant C and children.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not enter into an agreement on the method of subdivision, and there was no special agreement on the prohibition of subdivision regarding the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owners of the instant land, are Plaintiff 1/40, Defendant B 19/40, Defendant C3/34 (i.e., 1/2 x 3/17), Defendant D, E, E, F, G, H, I, and J 2/34 (=1/2 x 2/17). The Plaintiff, as co-owners of the instant land, may request the Defendants, who are co-owners of the instant land, to divide the shares.

B. As a matter of principle, division of co-owned property by trial is conducted in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, in the price division, the requirement does not physically strict interpretation, and includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, use after the division, use value, etc. of the co-owned property (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009). (2) The land of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind by the in-kind method, and the remaining amount after deducting auction expenses out of the proceeds of sale is deducted according to the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.