Article 269, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code, which stipulates the method of division of shared property, stipulates that if no agreement is reached on the method of division, the shareholder may request the court to divide the property, and if no agreement is reached, the court shall make a judicial division, Regarding the method of judicial division, Paragraph 2 of the same article explicitly stipulates two methods of judicial division: in-kind division and auction (price) division, stating that the court may auction the property if it cannot be divided in kind or if there is a fear that the value will be significantly diminished due to the division. There are two issues regarding the division of common property by trial. One is that the methods of division are not diverse and too much discretion is granted to the court in division, and the other is whether in-kind division is the principle among in-kind division and auction (price) division, as is the position of common sense and precedent. In response to these issues, the Civil Code Revision Committee in 2013 proposed an amendment to the Civil Code to allow the division of community property in kind, or by auction, value compensation, or other appropriate methods, to include various methods of division, but not in any order. Among the discussions on the division of common property in the case of judicial division, the discussion on amending the division method to diversify the division method needs to be considered and resolved in conjunction with the jurisprudence of the Litigation Act. Since a claim for division of common property is a formality, an exception to the rule of res judicata is recognized, allowing the court to make a judgment without being bound by the claims of the parties. In other words, due to the nature of the claim for division of common property, the court may order division in various ways at its discretion, whether or not it is amended. In other words, an auction (price) division can be ordered even if an in-kind division is requested, an auction (price) division can be ordered even if an in-kind division is requested, and an in-kind division can be ordered by way of compensation. First of all, we examined whether the division by value compensation needs to be explicitly stipulated as a new division method apart from the division in kind, such as the 2014 Civil Code Amendment Bill, through a review of the nature of the shared property division claim lawsuit. Since the nature of a claim for division of common property is a formalized claim, the court cannot issue a judgment dismissing a party's claim, but it can order the division of common property in various ways at its discretion without being bound by the nature of the party's claim. In other words, even if an in-kind division is requested, the court can still order an auction (price) division, and it can also order a partial division and a division by value compensation. Therefore, the amendment of Article 269(2) does not have any meaningful effect by simply adding a method of division. Therefore, it is not necessary to amend the current Article 269(2). Next, we examined whether in-kind division is the principle of the method of division of common property at trial or whether there is no need to set the order as in the 2014 amendment to the Civil Code, considering the nature of the claim for division of common property and the purpose of the sharing system. If we look only at the nature of the shared property division claim, it is necessary to amend the current Civil Code, which prioritizes the division method, but the purpose of the sharing system is to maintain the sharing relationship, and considering the practical interests of the shareholders, auction (price) division is the last method of division to be selected, so it would be desirable to allow in-kind division to take precedence over auction (price) division as it is currently the case. Therefore, the current regulation that prioritizes in-kind division is desirable.