1. The remainder of the amount of 67 square meters and 7 square meters prior to C in the Gu Government, which was put up for an auction and deducted the auction expenses from the proceeds.

1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), each of the lands listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter "each of the lands of this case") as 4/5 shares, and the fact that the plaintiff owns 1/5 shares, and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the partition method of each of the lands of this case by the date of closing argument of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each of the lands of this case, can seek a partition of co-owned property against the Defendant pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall, in principle, be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be substantially damaged due to such division, the proceeds thereof shall

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act: Provided, That the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" in the payment shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned, and the use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). The Ministry of Health and Welfare (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). Each of the instant lands is two parcels of land, each of which differs in their location, size, and shape, and the total area of each of the instant lands is merely 74 square meters and is thus 74 square meters and thus, the land owned by the parties is likely to fall in utility value because the area is narrow, and the land to be owned by the parties is likely to fall. The original Defendant does not want to divide the land in kind and does not want to own it solely by each of the parties concerned.