A. The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the acquisition intervenor shared 1,415m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in accordance with the co-ownership shares as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article.

B. The Plaintiff, the Intervenor, and the Defendants did not agree on the division of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property based on the judgment on the cause of the claim is to be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the price division, the requirement that “it is not possible to divide in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, and use value after the division.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) the Defendants, other than Defendant D, do not present any different opinion with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the auction division; (b) Defendant A asserted that the Plaintiff’s share would be purchased again at the price purchased by the Plaintiff; (c) Defendant G did not take any follow-up measures after the said assertion; (d) Defendant G’s share in the instant lawsuit was sold to the assignee by auction; (c) the Plaintiff consented to the Plaintiff’s claim for the auction division; and (d) the area of the instant land is 1,415 square meters; and (e) the land is partitioned to 7 co-owners; and (e) the land is excessively subdivided.