1. The amount of 159 square meters prior to Incheon Jung-gu shall be placed at an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction expenses from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff shared 7/9 and the Defendants shared 1/9 square meters prior to Incheon Jung-gu in proportion to 159 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division between the Plaintiff and the Defendants by the date of the closing of the instant argument, and the Defendants opposed to all in-kind division.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

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. Thus, 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, but the requirement of “shall not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation of the co-owned property, use value after division, etc.

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). In light of the above, as seen earlier, the Defendants absolutely object to the division of the jointly owned property by the spot-sale method, and it seems difficult for the Plaintiff to derive a reasonable plan to satisfy all the Plaintiff and the Defendants.