The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The court shall, in principle, divide the article jointly owned in kind in the case of dividing the article jointly owned by the co-owners in exchange for the agreement between the co-owners, but if the agreement is not reached, the court shall order the auction of the article only when it is impossible to divide the article in kind or when the value of the article is significantly decreased if the article is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall decide to divide the article jointly owned into several articles in kind in accordance with the share ratio of co-owners and to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the article divided.

In addition, the method of division would be reasonable division according to the ratio of shares of co-owners according to the situation of the co-ownership relationship or the object of the division according to the discretion of the court, rather than the method requested by the parties.

In addition, when land is partitioned, in principle, the area of land acquired by each co-owner shall be equal to the ratio of the co-owner's share, but it is not necessarily necessary to divide the land in such a way. It is also allowed to divide the economic value into the ratio of share in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the shape, location, utilization status, and real value of the land. If a certain requirement is met, it is allowed to divide the land by adjusting the economic value of the land between the co-owners in excess of or in monetary value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7620, Aug. 28, 190). Furthermore, it is allowed by the method of in-kind division.