Plaintiff

As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, Defendant C C’s 2/9 5/92/91, no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff can claim the partition of co-owned property against the defendants at any time pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Code. Thus, the plaintiff can claim the partition of co-owned property.

B. The partition of co-owned property based on the judgment of one legal principle as to the partition of co-owned property is in principle, it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind, or it is possible in form

Even if the price of the article jointly owned is likely to be reduced remarkably due to it, the auction of the article jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(2) of the Civil Code shall be ordered, and the price of the article is divided. The price of the article substantially reduced due to the in-kind division shall include not only the case where the exchange value of the whole article jointly owned is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division but also the case where the value of the part to be owned by the owner is significantly reduced than the share value before the partition of co-owned property as well as the case where the share value of the article to be owned by the co-owner is not fairly divided.

Even if the location, area and surrounding road conditions, use value, price, share ratio of each co-owner's ownership, and current status of use and profit-making, etc. of the co-owner shall be determined according to the share ratio of each co-owner.