1. The sale of the F 305 square meters in Seosan-si to an auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the price shall be 10.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The instant land is owned by Plaintiffs B 10/45, 15/45, c6/45, D10/45, and e4/45, respectively.

B. There is no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant land, and no agreement on the partition method of the instant land has been reached until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by trial is made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or it is possible in form, if the value might be significantly reduced, the sale of the co-owned property may be made by the so-called payment method, such as ordering the auction of the co-owned property, but the price may not be divided in kind. In the payment division, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value after the division, etc.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(2) The following circumstances, i.e., in-kind division and preliminary determination, are considered to have comprehensively taken account of the overall purport of the arguments adopted earlier: (a) the entire purport of the arguments adopted earlier, i.e., the Plaintiff’s primary intent.