1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall sell 291m2 at auction on the racing-si, for the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. In full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 shares, and the fact that there was no agreement as to the method of dividing the land of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant by the closing date of pleadings can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff, who is a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim the partition of the land of this case to the defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to Article 269(1)

2. The partition of co-owned property, based on the decision on the method of partition of co-owned property, shall be made by the method of in-kind partition, in principle, insofar as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or if the price might be reduced remarkably as a result, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered, and if it is possible in form, the price shall not be divided in kind, but it shall not be physically strict interpretation. It includes the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the partition.

In addition, the phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" also includes a co-owner's cases where the value of the portion to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

Therefore, it is possible to divide in kind formally.

Even if the location, area, and surrounding road conditions, use value, price, shares of each co-owner, and the current status of use and profit-making of the co-owner, the fair division is conducted according to the share ratio of each co-owner.