There is no agreement prohibiting the division of the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no agreement on the division method of the instant real estate as of the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the co-owner of the instant real estate, was not constituted regarding the method of partition of the instant real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiff may file a claim for partition of co-owned property in the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the

(b) In principle, the article jointly owned shall be divided in kind, but the article jointly owned may be divided by auction only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or the value thereof may be reduced remarkably by division.

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Code. The requirement that "shall not be divided into money in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide money in kind in light of the nature, location, area, current use, value of use after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 92Da30603 delivered on January 19, 193, etc.). The following circumstances are as follows: (a) if the instant real estate is partitioned into two parcels, it would have considerable difficulty in using the instant real estate as arguments in the form of the instant real estate; (b) considering the size of the instant real estate, if it is partitioned into two parcels, it would be very low in the efficiency or economic feasibility of cultivation if it is divided into two parcels; and (c) the Defendant’s claim for payment in installments is against the Plaintiff.