1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds by selling it by auction to the 119 square meters, which is located in the area of Jeonbuk-gun; and

I. We examine the principal claim.

1. Facts of recognition [based on recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 3, and purport of the whole pleadings];

A. The instant land is registered as the Plaintiff’s share in 1/2, and as the Defendant owns one-half shares, respectively.

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

C. The instant land belongs to a planned management area, and the minimum size of a planned management area is 60 square meters.

2. Determination

A. Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If the agreement on the method of partition of co-owned property does not lead to agreement on the method of partition, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. If the co-owners are unable to divide it in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the property (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Upon examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff, co-owners, may file a claim for partition against the Defendant, who is the other co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269

B. As a matter of principle, partition of co-owned property in kind is to be made in a manner that makes it possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in a case where the price is likely to decrease substantially due to such fact, it shall be made by the so-called payment division ordering the auction of the co-owned property to divide the price. In payment division, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the co-owned property in question (see Supreme Court Decision 200, Apr. 12, 2002).