A. Other Defendants, other than the Plaintiff, Defendant V, and W, share 331 square meters of the Seo-gu Incheon X cemetery in the proportion of each co-ownership indicated in the attached Table 1’s co-ownership ratio.

B. Other Defendants, other than the Plaintiff and Defendant R, share 1024 square meters of the Seo-gu Incheon Y Cemetery in the proportion of co-ownership indicated in the attached Table 2’s co-ownership ratio.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each of the instant lands until now.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap's statements or images, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, part of the co-owners of each of the lands of this case, may claim the partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

3. Method of partition of co-owned property;

(a) If the principle for the method of partition of co-owned property is unable to be divided in kind or the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably due to the division, the court may order an auction of things; and

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. In principle, division of co-owned property by trial shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" in the price division is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use of the co-owned property, use value after the partition, etc.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Delivered on April 12, 2002