1. The Plaintiff shall sell the paddy field C 1,240 square meters to an auction at the same time, and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) 2/17 shares in C 1,240 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) the Defendant owned 15/17 shares in the instant real estate; and (c) the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant real estate does not conflict between the parties; or (d) it may be acknowledged by the statement in A 1.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, one of the co-owners of the real estate of this case may claim a partition of the real estate of this case against the defendant based on his co-ownership.

In addition, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the plaintiff want to divide the real estate of this case through auction, the defendant does not respond to the delivery of the complaint of this case requesting a partition through auction, and the area, location, and current use of the real estate of this case can be seen as likely to decrease the function and value of the land after the partition. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to sell the real estate of this case through auction and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses to the plaintiff and the defendant in proportion to their share, since the method of spot-sale or spot-sale by means of spot-sale compensation is difficult or inappropriate to maintain the utility value of the real estate of this case in the manner of spot-sale or partial value compensation.

3. In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by the court below that the real estate of this case was put to an auction and was distributed to the plaintiff at the ratio of 2/17 and 15/17 to the defendant.