A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to their co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the partition of the co-owned property, the Plaintiff, as co-owners of the instant real property, may claim a partition of the instant real property against the Defendants pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. Furthermore, in full view of the method of partition and the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the present court’s on-site inspection as co-owners, the real estate of this case is a forest, forest, and ditch, and its shape, which can be seen from the northwest side to the southwest side, as well as the distance from the road to each location, is considerably different from the economic value of each co-owner if the real estate is divided in kind, and it is difficult to reduce the economic value by properly regulating its location and area.

Therefore, it is judged that the division is the most equitable and reasonable method to follow the method of payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff and the defendants agree to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale by selling the real estate at auction, according to their co-ownership ratio. It is so decided as per Disposition.