There is no agreement prohibiting the division of the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, 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.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the agreement on the method of partition of the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owner of the instant real estate, was not constituted. As such, the Plaintiff may claim a partition of co-owned property in the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act

(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 Decisions 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991, 92Da30603 delivered on January 19, 1993, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances, the real estate of this case is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind, taking into account (i) the size of the real estate of this case into account (i.e., the size of the real estate of this case) and the following circumstances that can be known to the purport of the entire argument; (ii) the efficiency or economic feasibility of cultivation would be significantly reduced if the real estate of this case is further subdivided into 1/6 or more; and (iii) the Defendants did not present any objection against the Plaintiff’s claim for payment.