1. The remaining amount after 662 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun shall be put to an auction and the auction expenses shall be deducted from the proceeds thereof;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the land of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 shares of each of them.

B. The instant land has no access road leading to a public road, and the boundary line of a certain portion of the land does not adjoin.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the partition of co-owned property until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Grounds for Recognition: Descriptions of Evidence A, Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff, co-owner of the land of this case, can claim the partition of the land of this case against the defendant, who is another co-owner.

B. A method of partition of co-owned property 1) In a case where the co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind with the value, the auction of the property may be ordered, and “the co-owned property shall not be divided in kind” in this context is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property or it is not physically impossible to divide it in kind (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 200).

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts of recognition and the evidence of recognition, namely, ① the form of each part of the land of this case and the accessibility to each part after subdivision, it is likely that the value or use value, etc. would significantly decline when dividing the land of this case in kind. ② Furthermore, the location, area, and use status, etc. of the land of this case are added, it is appropriate for the division in kind that gives economic satisfaction in accordance with the ratio of shares between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.