A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on public sale on August 30, 2013, regarding 3208/2031/208 of the O’s shares in the instant land.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants currently own the instant land in proportion to their shares, such as the attached list.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap's entries and the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the claim for partition of co-owned property

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff and the defendants shared the land of this case. The plaintiff can file a claim for partition of the land of this case against the other co-owners pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Code.

B. As a matter of principle, division of co-owned property in kind can be conducted in a rational partition according to each co-owner's share. However, in the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc., the requirement that the sale of the property can be ordered, and "the division may not be made in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use condition, and use value after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted, the following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s assertion that the auction is adequate when the said split-off was known, and the Defendants did not file an application for survey appraisal. ② The Defendants initially and theO land adjacent to the instant real estate and three lots of P, forest and Q, forest and Q, land adjacent thereto.