1. The Plaintiff shall sell the F field 2,972 square meters at an auction at the time of Jinjin-si, and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the F field F 2,972 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) at the ratio of shares indicated in the text.

B. There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding the instant land, and no agreement on division has been reached until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, one of co-owners of the land of this case, may claim a partition of the land of this case against the Defendants based on his co-ownership.

B. In principle, division of co-owned property by judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, but in the payment division, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation of the co-owned property, use value after the division, etc.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). According to the evidence adopted earlier, the land of this case is farmland and its area is less than 2,972 square meters, and it is not appropriate to divide it in kind. The Defendants did not actively dispute the Plaintiff’s claim for auction division, such as the Plaintiff’s receipt of the complaint of this case and the submission of a written response, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case by auction.

3. Conclusion Then, I cannot agree.