1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds by selling 3,101 square meters to the public auction in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant real estate in their shares in attached Form 2.

There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding the instant real estate, and there is no agreement on the method of partition of the said real estate until the closing of argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the co-ownership of co-owned property of this case, according to the above facts acknowledged, the plaintiff, co-owner of the real property of this case, may file a claim for partition of the real property of this case, which is co-owner of the other co-owner, pursuant to

In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition shall be made in kind as long 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 it is possible in form, if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably, the auction of the co-owned property may be ordered, and if the price is likely to be reduced remarkably, the price may be divided in kind. However, in the 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 of the co-owned property, use value after the partition

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). In full view of the following: (a) the following evidence; and (b) the overall purport of the statements, images, and arguments as stated in the evidence of Nos. 1 to 4.