A. The Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 9m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) share the respective shares of Plaintiff 4/18, Defendant B 7.5/18, Defendant C2.5/18, Defendant D2.5/18, Defendant D2.5/18, and Defendant E1.5/18.

B. At the time of implementing the housing redevelopment improvement project in Zone Two of Sari Zone, including the instant land, one apartment sales right has been allocated to the instant land. However, if the land is partitioned, there is no sales right.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not intend to divide in kind and want to purchase only the shares of each other, and thus did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, since the land of this case, which is jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendants, is unable to be divided in kind, or its value is likely to be significantly reduced due to division, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case into an auction and the auction proceeds after deducting the auction costs from the sale proceeds, and to divide them into the share of co-ownership and the

3. In conclusion, we decide to divide the land of this case as above and decide as per Disposition.