The remaining Defendants and the Plaintiff, except the Defendant Boan-gun, share each share of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list in the attached Table 1.

The remaining Defendants and the Plaintiff, other than Defendant G, share each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 2.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the above lands.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 10 evidence, and co-owners did not consult about the method of partition as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list. Thus, the plaintiff has a co-ownership right against the defendants based on the co-ownership right.

In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, if it is impossible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind or if it is possible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind in kind, the auction of the property may be ordered if the value thereof might be significantly reduced, and the requirement of "undivided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is required, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the jointly-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, situation of use, and use value after the partition.

The phrase "if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" includes the case where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by him/her is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). The evidence and the evidence mentioned above mentioned prior to the specific division method are written in the statement Nos. 1 and 2.