A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to their respective shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, but no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of division until the date of the closing of the instant argument.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff sharing the instant real estate and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant real estate.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it cannot be divided in kind is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). We examine the following: (a) A majority of the co-ownership holders of the instant co-ownership rights; and (b) it seems difficult to draw up a reasonable plan to satisfy all of the co-ownership rights because the location is unclear in the case of Defendant B and C; (c) the Defendants did not appear on the date of pleading of the instant case; and (d) did not submit a written reply, etc