1. The plaintiff shall sell the answer 1935m2 to the auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff shares 1/4 shares, Defendant B’s 2/4 shares, and Defendant C shares 1/4 shares, respectively.

B. The instant land is farmland that has been implemented as an agricultural and forest area and agricultural promotion zone for agricultural production infrastructure improvement projects under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act (2012-11-09, Dogdogdog road).

C. Of the instant land, on July 13, 2015, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage-backed property amounting to KRW 53,300,000 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage-backed property E, the maximum debt amount, KRW 19,000,000, has been completed.

On the other hand, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land, and there was no special agreement prohibiting the division.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition, one of co-owners can file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the land of this case based on his co-ownership.

B. In principle, division of co-owned property by judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to each co-owner's share. However, in the payment division, the requirement that "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide a co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, the situation of use, and the use value after the division.

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.

Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991, and January 1, 1993