1. The amount of 1,316 square meters prior to E in racing shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction costs from the proceeds.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the plaintiffs share 1/6 shares, each of which the defendants shared 2/6 shares, and the facts that the plaintiffs and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the land of this case by the closing date of pleadings.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs, co-owners of the land of this case, may claim the division of the land of this case against the defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the

2. The partition of co-owned property, based on the decision on the method of partition of co-owned property, shall be made by the method of in-kind partition, in principle, insofar as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or if the price might be reduced remarkably as a result, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered, and if it is possible in form, the price shall not be divided in kind, but it shall not be physically strict interpretation. It includes the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the partition.

In addition, the phrase "if the value of the portion is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" also includes a co-owner's cases where the value of the portion to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

Therefore, it is possible to divide in kind formally.

In addition, the location, area and surrounding road conditions, use value, price, shares of each co-owner, and the current status of use and profit-making of the co-owner.