1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of auction;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff at the ratio of 2/4, Defendant B, and C, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide each of the instant real estate, but no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of division until the closing date of the instant argument.

[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 each of the instant real estate and the Defendants did not reach 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 each 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 it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). We examine the following: (a) Defendant B and C operated his restaurant for a long time, but the Plaintiff is merely an investor who has acquired the shares of each real estate of this case through an auction; (b) it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff can obtain lease proceeds equivalent to the shares of each real estate of this case; and (c) this is the case.