1. The plaintiff and the defendant, who put the remaining amount of 1534m2 prior to D in the auction at Silung-si after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B shared 1/5 (Register 306.8/1534) and Defendant C’s share at the ratio of 3/5, respectively.

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

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff sharing the instant real estate and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim the division of the instant real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment 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 cannot be divided in kind in kind is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value after the partition

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.). The co-ownership right holder of the instant case appears to be difficult to draw a reasonable plan to meet all of the dispute in terms of the nature of the dispute as a form of punishment. <2> The plan submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having sufficiently presented reasonable grounds, and the use value after division of each real estate of this case.