1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall pay the money obtained by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale by selling each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant at their respective shares of 1/2.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may claim a partition of each real estate of this case against the Defendant, who is another co-owner.

B. Generally, the division of co-owned property by judgment is in principle made in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable division according to each co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind in kind or if it is anticipated that the value might be reduced remarkably, the auction may be ordered to pay in kind. Here, the term "the case that can not be divided in kind" includes cases where it is not physically strict interpretation, but it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.).

Based on the above legal principles, we examine the division method of the land of this case.

According to the records, while the plaintiff wants to divide the price through auction, the defendant asserts that the auction of his own share is not original but the defendant's share should be purchased by the plaintiff.

However, according to the defendant's assertion, each of the instant real estate is a blind person who is unable to pass through public services without passing through other land owned by the defendant, and it seems that the plaintiff would be disadvantageous when it is divided in kind or the plaintiff acquires the shares owned by the defendant.