A. In Jeju Island, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 6/30 shares of the E company’s 368.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The defendants are siblings.

B. There was no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant land, and no agreement on the partition method of the instant land has been reached until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Evidence A 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, can file a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. A method of partition of co-owned property 1) In a case where the co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced, an auction of the property may be ordered. Here, the requirement of “undivided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value after the division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 209). 2) The records are clearly recorded, or it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the land of this case in kind in kind in consideration of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments as stated in the evidence No. 3 and No. 1.

① As to the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property, the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant B, are the date for preparatory pleading even upon receipt of a duplicate of complaint and date summons.