A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the ratio of the shares specified in Paragraph 1 of this Article.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate, which is public property, until the closing date of the instant argument.

【Defendant C’s ground for recognition: Defendant D’s non-contentious facts; Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3; Gap’s evidence No. 4-1, 2; and Gap’s evidence No. 5; the purport of the whole pleadings; Defendant E, G, H, and I: Defendant F: Defendant F under Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3)(i) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendants to divide the instant real estate.

Furthermore, as to the method of partition of co-owned property, in general, the method of partition in kind is the principle of partition in kind, and if it is impossible to divide in kind in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction can be ordered.

In addition, "where it is not possible to divide it in kind" in the payment division shall not be interpreted physically strictly, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

In light of the following circumstances and the overall purport of each of the above evidence, if the real estate of this case is divided in kind, the use value of the real estate of this case is likely to be significantly reduced because the area corresponding to the co-ownership ratio of some co-owners is narrow. The remaining Defendants except Defendant D and Defendant F, who are in progress by service by publication, among the Defendants, consent to the auction division method of the Plaintiff or objection thereto.