1. The real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list is attached to the auction and the auction cost is deducted from the proceeds of the auction;

In fact, the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list of real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in their respective shares in the attached Table 2 list.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including a provisional number), and the fact-finding that the claim for partition of the co-owned property was established, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff may claim a partition of the co-owned property against the defendant, who is another co-owner of the land of this case.

In cases of dividing jointly-owned property through a trial, in principle, it is possible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind as long as it can be reasonably divided according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind or if the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced, the auction of the property may be ordered. Here, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the jointly-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location and size of the property, the use situation, and the use value after the division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002; 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009; 2009; 2009Da4026, Sept. 10, 2009).