1. The Plaintiff shall sell B Daecheon-si B volume 876m2 to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including family identification numbers), real estate indicated in the order (hereinafter "real estate of this case") was jointly owned by C 330/876 shares, and by the defendant 546/876 shares. However, it is recognized that the plaintiff sold C's co-ownership shares through a voluntary auction on January 21, 2014, and thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to divide the real estate of this case, but the plaintiff did not reach an agreement on the method of division among the original defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may claim against the Defendant the division of the instant real estate jointly owned by him.

However, if a co-owner's apportionment of the jointly-owned property is agreed upon, the method may be selected at will, but if the jointly-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the value of the property may be reduced remarkably, the auction of the property may be ordered to be paid in installments.

In this context, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

"Where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to decrease substantially if the portion is divided in kind" includes cases where, even if a person is a co-owner, the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may decrease significantly more than the value of the share before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). With respect to the instant case, the health class, the evidence mentioned above, and the result of the on-site inspection by the court, the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraiser D’s survey and appraisal.