1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 shall be put to an auction for the money remaining after deducting the costs of auction from the proceeds of sale.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in each of Gap evidence No. 1 or Gap evidence No. 17 (including each number), the plaintiff and the defendants shared real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") in their respective shares in the separate sheet No. 2, and it can be acknowledged that the agreement regarding the method of division has not been reached between the plaintiff and the defendants, co-owner of the real estate of this case by the date of closing argument of this case. Thus, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the defendants, other co-owners, in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, unless

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 far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible to divide in kind, the value thereof may be reduced remarkably, by ordering an auction of the goods, only when it is apprehended that

Since it is impossible to divide the instant real estate in kind because it falls under the size of partition-restricted area under Article 22 of the Farmland Act as farmland, the real estate of this case is to be divided by means of selling the instant real estate at auction and distributing the remaining money remaining after deducting auction expenses from the price in attached Table 2 in each share

3. The conclusion is that the real estate of this case is divided as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition. The costs of the lawsuit of this case shall be borne individually in consideration of the nature and progress of the lawsuit of this case.