1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Daegu-gun District Co., Ltd. shall be put up for auction and at the price.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2-1 and all pleadings, the plaintiff co-ownership of the share of 127.3/151 shares, and the defendant 23.7/151 shares of 3.7/151 shares, according to the purport of Gap's claim for partition of co-owned property.

A co-owner may file a claim for partition of the co-owned property (Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If the agreement on the method of partition of the co-owned property is not reached, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. Since the agreement on the method of partition between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who is the co-owners of the land of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, the

2. In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner; however, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, use, use value after the partition, etc. of the co-owner's co-owned property;

(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 by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(대법원 2002. 4. 12. 선고 2002다4580 판결) 이 사건으로 돌아와 위 법리에 비추어 살피건대, 갑 제6호증의 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 원고의 주위적 청구취지와 같은 현물분할 방법은 단순히 이 사건 토지를 동서(東西)로 이분하는 것에 불과하여, 이 사건 토지의 현재 이용상황, 주변 토지와의 관계...