1. The plaintiff shall sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants owned 1/3 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "land No. 1," "land No. 2," and combined "each land of this case" as "each land of this case"), and it is recognized that no agreement has been reached between the plaintiff and the defendants as to the method of partition of each land of this case until the closing of argument of this case.

A co-owner may demand a partition of the co-owned property, and if an agreement as to the method of partition of the co-owned property has not been reached, the court may demand a partition thereof (Article 268 and Article 269 of the Civil Act). Thus, the plaintiff may demand a partition of each land against the defendants, who are other co-owners.

2. In principle, partition of co-owned property by a judgment on the method of partition shall be made in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the shares of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such impossibility, the court may order the auction of the co-owned property to divide the co-owned property by the so-called price partition.

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. The requirement that “shall not be divided in kind” is 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, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned in question in light of the nature, location, and use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) there is no adequate and equitable method of division in kind that gives economic satisfaction to the Plaintiff and the Defendants corresponding to their share ratio; and (b) there is no adequate and fair method of