A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the designated parties, and the Defendants shared each share in relation to 2,338 square meters of Jan-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Although there is no agreement among the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the designated parties, and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case, there was no agreement on the method of partition.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties are co-owners of the land of this case, who are different co-owners pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act, and they may claim partition of co-owned property to the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, since consultation as to the method of partition did not lead to agreement.

B. In full view of the current status and form of the land of this case, the number of co-owners and the number of co-owners where the partition is made in kind, the seizure of the shares of some co-owners, and the opinions on the division method of the parties, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case by auction as stipulated in paragraph (1

3. If so, the method of partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case is determined as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.