1. The plaintiff and the plaintiff who sell K 2,923m2 to auction and deducts the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant real estate at the ratio indicated in the corresponding co-ownership column in the attached Table, in order to co-ownership of 2,923 square meters in Nam-si, Namwon-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The real estate of this case is farmland, the rearrangement project for agricultural production infrastructure of which has been completed on July 28, 199, under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act.

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.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, fact-finding results for South Korea, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate and the Defendants, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiff may claim a partition of co-owned property in the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. The method of partition of co-owned property is, in principle, divided in kind, but the co-owned property may be divided according to auction only when it is not possible to divide it in kind or the value thereof may be reduced remarkably by division.

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides that farmland for which a project for improving agricultural production infrastructure has been implemented under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act shall not be divided, except where the area of each parcel is divided into more than 2,000 square meters after the division.

According to the above facts, the real estate of this case is farmland for which a project for the improvement of agricultural production infrastructure has been completed on July 28, 1999, and it is impossible to divide it into more than 2,000 square meters to the plaintiff and the defendants, considering its size and the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.

Since the real estate in this case is not possible to be divided in kind pursuant to Article 22 (2) 3 of the Farmland Act, it is subject to the payment due to auction.