A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet of co-ownership shares in the separate sheet of co-ownership (hereinafter “each of the instant land” and “the instant building,” collectively, and “each of the instant real estate” in the separate sheet of co-ownership.

B. The instant land is a place corresponding to a general commercial area and is a site on which the instant building is located on that ground, and it is not possible to divide the area of each parcel into less than 150 square meters after partition pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Building Act, Article 80 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 39 of the former City Building Ordinance.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the partition of co-owned property by the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including each number in case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may claim the division of each real estate of this case against the Defendants, who are co-owners of the other co-owners.

B. In a case where a partition of co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide the co-owned property in kind or if the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced, an auction of the property may be ordered. Here, the requirement does not physically be interpreted strictly, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the partition, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009).