1. The remainder of the auction price calculated by deducting the auction cost from the price, after selling the H 268 square meters and the I 625 square meters and the I 265 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 4/12 shares, Defendant C, D, E, and F, respectively, in proportion to 1/12 shares, respectively, by the Plaintiff and Defendant G, respectively.

B. There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, as of the date of closing argument of this case, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of each land of this case, barring special circumstances, such as the agreement prohibiting partition, since there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of each land of this case.

B. The partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition shall be, in principle, divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. If it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be substantially damaged due to the division, the price shall be divided through

(2) Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides that the instant litigation procedure is under way with respect to Defendant G by public notice, and the remaining Defendants, other than the said Defendant, are not present on the date of pleading without submitting a written reply or a written brief, and it would be difficult or inappropriate to adopt the method of in-kind division or price compensation, and the Defendants also participated in the auction procedure to receive a successful bid for each of the instant land, and thus, the method of price division by auction cannot be deemed unilaterally disadvantageous to the Defendants. In light of the above, the method of selling each of the instant land by auction and distributing the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds thereof to the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ respective shares is fair.