1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall sell “4,063m2” for auction to Pyeongtaek-si G-si and deduct the auction cost from the price.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared their respective share ratios listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each share ratio of the parties concerned”) with respect to “4,063 square meters” (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement as to the method of partition of the instant land by the closing date of argument in the instant case. The instant land cannot be divided unless it falls under any of subparagraphs 1 through 4 of Article 22(2) of the Farmland Act, and in particular, it cannot be divided into less than 2,00 square meters as farmland for which the agricultural infrastructure improvement project was implemented pursuant to the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act. In addition, it can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s co-owner of the instant land, as co-owner of the instant land, and the fact that it cannot be divided into less than 2,00 square meters.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made in kind so that each co-owner can make a rational partition according to his/her share. However, the requirement of “undivided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation of the co-owned property, use value after the partition, etc., and it is not physically strict interpretation.

in the case of a co-owner's act of dividing in kind, "if the value of the property is likely to decrease substantially, the value of the property may decrease substantially," also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner might decrease significantly more than the value of the property before the division.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, this case.