1. The remainder of the money obtained by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deducting the auction cost from the proceeds;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) is a real estate in which the Plaintiff is jointly owned by 6/36, 12/36, 8/36, 6/36, 6/36, and 5/36, respectively.

B. As of the date of the closing of the instant argument, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the designated parties did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Co-owners who have created the right to partition of co-owned property may claim partition of the co-owned property (the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act), and if the consultation on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may claim partition

(Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim the partition of each of the instant lands against the Defendant and the designated parties, who are other co-owners.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that there is an agreement between the co-owners of each land of this case to pay part of the management profits to the plaintiff without internal partition, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(b) The method of partition of co-owned property, based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, shall be, in principle, in kind, as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner, or, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be made

The requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da402194026 Decided September 10, 2009). This case is a case.