1. The remainder of the amount of JJ 168.6 square meters sold at auction in Jeonnam-do and the auction cost is deducted from the price.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared JJJ 168.6m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the same way as the shares in the separate sheet, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendants by the date of the closing of the argument in this case can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings on the entry in the evidence No. 1.

As to the method of partition of co-owned property, the method of partition may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-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 it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the court may order the auction of the property only when the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably.

In addition, the requirement that the "in-kind can not be divided" is not a physically strict interpretation, but it 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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 1993; 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). In light of the location, area, utilization status, and intent of the parties to the division, etc. of the real estate of this case recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, it is difficult to find a reasonable method of spot distribution between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendants are deemed to have no intent to compensate for the value equivalent to the other party’s share value and to acquire shares corresponding thereto.