1. The plaintiff 19/20, after selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and subtracting the auction cost from that price.

In principle, the article jointly owned shall be divided in kind, but the court may order the auction of the article if it is impossible to divide the article in kind or if the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably due to the division.

(See Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. Here, the requirement that “it shall not be divided in kind” does not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, circumstances of use, value of use after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned, in light of the nature, location, area

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

(1) The court below held that the real estate of this case in this case is owned by the plaintiff 19/20 and the defendant 1/20 as shares of the plaintiff 1/20 and the defendant 1/20, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the health care unit and the evidence No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1 of this case and the whole purport of the arguments No. 1 and No. 2 of this case, since the defendant's share ratio is 1/20 and if the real estate of this case is divided into investment in kind, the land or building among the real estate of this case to be owned by the defendant is deemed to be considerably reduced in utility value, it is reasonable to sell the real estate of this case by auction and distribute it according to co-ownership, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.