A. Each land listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the [Attachment 1] is currently owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to the column for “mark of share” in the annexed Table 2V, W, X public land portion.

B. The land listed in attached Table 1 No. 4 is currently owned by the Plaintiff and Defendant B, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, and U in proportion to the column for “mark of share” in the attached Table 3 Y public land.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the relevant legal principles, in the case of dividing the jointly-owned property in kind or in the case of dividing it in kind, if it is difficult to divide it in kind or it is apprehended to substantially decrease its value, the auction of the article may be ordered. Here, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, and use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property. (See Supreme Court Decisions 91Da2728 delivered on Nov. 12, 1991, Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da4580 delivered on Apr. 12, 200, Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da40219 delivered on Sep. 10, 209, 2009; 1.3.0Da1281 delivered on Nov. 12, 200, 201, 1.3.

I would like to say.

3. According to the conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the payment by auction for each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1.