1. The Plaintiff shall sell 605m2 at auction for the racing-si, and the remaining money after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the Plaintiff 1/2 shares and each share indicated in the Plaintiff 1/2 shares and the Defendants’ list at the time of racing-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The fact that the agreement on the division of each of the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was not reached by the closing date of pleadings in the instant case does not conflict between the parties, or that the agreement on the division of each of the instant land was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, according to the purport of each entry and the entire pleadings

According to this, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may claim a partition of land under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act against the Defendants, who are the remaining co-owners.

2. The method of partition of co-owned property, and the method of partition by trial shall be, in principle, divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if it is possible to divide in kind, if the value might be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it may not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use situation of the co-owned property, and the use value after the division.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant land into the spot, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s return to the instant case and health account; (b) the building unregistered for part of the instant land is located; and (c) the Plaintiff appears not to have been able to obtain access to the land for contribution when the land was divided into the spot; and (d) the Defendants did not present the method of the spot-sale; and (e) the Defendants are deemed to have not raised any objection to the auction division.