1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Attached Form

Real estate stated in the list of real estate, the indication of the accompanying drawings, ...

1. Basic facts

A. The buildings listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter the building in this case) are jointly owned by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Appointeds (hereinafter the Plaintiffs), and the Defendants are jointly owned with each share in the separate sheet of the designated parties and each share in the separate sheet of the Defendant.

B. There is no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and there was no agreement on the partition method of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant building, may file a claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, for the partition of the instant building, which is jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

3. Method of partition of co-owned property;

(a) In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by a trial, when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when it is anticipated that the value thereof will be significantly reduced, the auction of the article may be ordered, and in this context, the "undivided in kind" requirement is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, and use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly-owned in kind.

However, in the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a trial, the court is in principle dividing it in kind. Thus, it is not permissible to order the payment of the price without permission due to the subjective and abstract circumstances, such as the fact that there is no agreement between the co-owners on the method of division, without any objective and specific deliberation on the requirements that it is inevitable to pay the price inevitably.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219 Decided September 10, 2009). B.

In this regard, the above legal principles are set forth in Gap.