The Plaintiff shared 62/80 of the pertinent site and 9/80 shares, respectively, with respect to D-do 136 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”), and the Defendants shared 62/80 shares. The instant site and 22.1 square meters of single-story stores owned by the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant store”) are located on both the instant land and Macheon-si E.

Until the closing date of the instant case, the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant site.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including separate numbers, if there are separate numbers), and the facts of recognition as above are based on the whole purport of pleading, the plaintiff, a co-owner of the site of this case, may file a claim against the defendants, who are other co-owners, for the division of the site of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division as long as the price can be reasonably divided according to each co-owner's share. However, even if it is impossible or possible in in-kind, if the price can considerably decline due to the auction of the co-owned property, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property. In the case of payment, "it cannot be divided in-kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in-kind in-kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002; 9Da6746, Jun. 11, 199). Since the above ground of this case is located in the building site owned by the defendant C, it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the land of this case.