1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. A building listed in the annex 1 shall be put to an auction and the auction expenses shall be deducted from the price.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on this issue is identical to the grounds for the second to 18th page 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the above facts of the judgment on the merits, the plaintiff may request the defendant to divide the jointly owned property based on his/her co-ownership, except in extenuating circumstances.

Furthermore, with respect to the detailed method of partition of the building of this case, in principle, the common property jointly owned by the trial shall be divided in kind. However, even if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in kind, if the price is likely to significantly decrease due to the fact, it shall be divided by the auction of the common property and the so-called price division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da6746 delivered on June 11, 1999). Furthermore, if part of a building is intended to become an object of sectional ownership, that part must be independent from other parts in terms of its use and structure, as well as from other parts. A part of a building that fails to meet physical requirements, which is the object of sectional ownership, cannot be established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da3471 Decided March 27, 2018). Therefore, in a case where a building, which is a common property, is partitioned, each partitioned part of the building ought to be independent in light of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225398 Decided December 22, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225398). According to each description of Gap's 1 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 14, and Eul's 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the results of fact inquiry and the whole purport of pleadings to the head of the same Gu of the first instance court, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

In terms of structural independence, the attached Table 2.1 asserted by the Plaintiff.