The real estate listed in the attached list 1 shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and the whole arguments, real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "real estate of this case") is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant at the same rate as co-ownership share, and no special agreement was made between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the prohibition of partition of the common property of this case until the date of closing argument of this case, and no agreement on the method of partition of the real property of this case was reached.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs, co-owners of the real estate of this case, can request the defendant, who is another co-owner, to divide the real estate of this case.

Furthermore, with regard to the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made in kind as far as the size of each parcel after the partition can be made in proportion to the co-owner's share. However, if the size of the real property of this case is either 2,916 square meters or 2,00 square meters and there is a possibility that the value may be significantly reduced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da30583, Oct. 14, 2004). The following circumstances, which can be known by comprehensively considering the entries and arguments in evidence Nos. 10 and 11, are as follows. In other words, Article 22(2)3 of the Farmland Act provides that with respect to farmland for which a project for improving agricultural production infrastructure under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act is implemented for the prevention of subdivision of farmland ownership, it is difficult to divide it into two thousand square meters or more, or it is inappropriate to divide it into one of the co-owners and the defendant in kind.

Therefore, the instant real estate is sold at auction.