A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate indicated in the indication of the annexed real estate (hereinafter “instant land”) at the share ratio indicated in the annexed co-owner and share indication, and that the co-owned property partition agreement on the instant land was not constituted between the aforementioned parties.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the remaining co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In addition, according to the above macroscopic evidence, the land of this case is not a forest and field leading to a contribution, and its co-owners are also recognized to have up to 12 persons. Considering such fact, it is difficult or inappropriate to maintain the utility value of the land of this case and to seek fair division among co-owners.

Considering the circumstances above (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). It is the most equitable and reasonable method to sell the land of this case at auction and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price to co-owners according to the share sharing ratio.

C. Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by selling the instant land to auction and by deciding to pay the price in installments.

2. Determination as to the remaining Defendants

(a) Indication: Claim for partition of co-owned property as to the immovables listed in paragraph (1);

B. Judgment by service based on which the recognition of Defendant E is applicable (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

C. Judgment of deemed confessions based on recognition of the remaining Defendants except Defendant C and E (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)