The plaintiff shall sell 110.4 square meters of J-City road to auction and deduct the auction costs from the proceeds.

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 added the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners of the area of 110.4 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") of Seocheon-si J. J. (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), and the facts that the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the real estate of this case may be acknowledged.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff may request the court to divide the real estate of this case.

Furthermore, in the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by a trial, if it is possible to divide it in kind, in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind, the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced, the auction of the jointly-owned property can be ordered to be paid in installments.

Here, the requirement of "undivided in kind" includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the article in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, current use, value of use after the division.

In addition, the phrase “where the value is likely to be significantly reduced if the instant real estate is divided in kind,” includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by himself/herself is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the share value of the ownership before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015). According to the fact-finding findings of this court, the fact-finding can be recognized that, if the instant real estate is divided in kind, there is a limit that should be divided into at least 60 square meters. As such, the Plaintiff’s share area is not smaller than 14 square meters (=10.4 square meters x 7,272/58,352), so it is difficult to divide the instant real estate in kind.

Furthermore, the Defendants did not express their opinions on the Plaintiff’s request, and have the financial ability of the Defendants.