1. The defendant's share of 1/8 of the building stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff is a cause for the division of the common property.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, 1/8 shares in the instant building are owned by the Plaintiff; the remaining 7/8 shares in the instant building are owned by the Defendant; and the fact that no agreement has been reached as to the method of dividing the instant building, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, until the date of closing the argument.

According to the above facts, since an agreement was not reached between the plaintiff and the defendant as co-owner of the building of this case and the method of dividing common properties, the plaintiff can file a claim for the partition of the building of this case.

Furthermore, we examine the method of division.

The division of the co-owned property is a principle that if the co-owners are allowed to choose the method at will, but if the co-owners fail to reach an agreement, if the co-owners divide the jointly-owned property through a trial, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. The court may order the auction of the goods only when the value of the property might be significantly reduced if the co-owners divide it in kind or in kind. On the other hand, it is reasonable to acquire the jointly-owned property to a specific person in consideration of the circumstances such as the cause of the co-ownership relationship, the ratio of co-ownership to co-ownership, the economic value of the co-ownership if divided, and the wishes of the co-owners to divide it, and the acquisition of the price of the share by the other co-owners shall not interfere with the substantial fairness of the co-owners, it is allowed to divide the jointly-owned property into the sole or several co-owners, but the co-owners who own the property in kind are entitled to compensation for the share in kind at an appropriate and reasonable price for other co-owners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 3005Da34.