R died on December 29, 199, and his heir is Defendant B, I, J, K, and L.

S died on November 10, 2004, and his heir is Defendant G and H.

U died on January 30, 2004, and his heir is Defendant M, N,O, and P.

Each share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant land is as indicated in the separate shares list, and no agreement has been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim a partition of the instant land against the Defendants, other co-owners.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The method of partition of co-owned property shall be considered to have been recognized under paragraph (1) and overall purport of pleadings;

The Plaintiff sought an auction division as to the instant land, and the Defendants did not raise any specific objection against the auction division.

In the partition of co-owned property, in principle, the division in kind has not been claimed in kind among co-owners of the land of this case, and no other reasonable method of division in kind is found.

In light of the nature, location, area of the instant land, the share ratio of co-owners, and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant land in kind, and thus, it is the most fair and reasonable method to choose an auction division.

Therefore, the land of this case is sold to the plaintiff and the defendants according to the ratio of each of the co-ownership list, which was put up for auction and deducted the auction cost from the price.

3. In conclusion, the land of this case is as above.