The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 205 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to 1/5 shares, respectively.

Although the Plaintiff proposed the division of the instant land to the Defendants, it did not reach an agreement on the method of division.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and the whole purport of the pleading was not discussed between the plaintiff and the defendants, who are co-owners of the land of this case, as the co-owners of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff has a co-owned share right to co-owned property partition as to the land of this case against

In cases of dividing jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the property may be ordered if the value thereof might be significantly reduced, and the requirement of "not to divide it in kind" is not physically strict interpretation but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property, and it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind.

The phrase "if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" includes the case where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by him/her is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). The evidence and the evidence indicated prior to the specific division method and the evidence indicated in Gap 3, and the following circumstances, which can be seen by adding the whole pleadings to the result of the commission of appraisal to the head of the Jung-Eup branch office of the Korea Land and Information Corporation, the Korea Land and Information Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Land and Information Corporation”) in this court, each of the following circumstances, i.e., indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and