1. The plaintiff 45.5m2 of Jeju-si D 505m2 and the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the price is sold to auction.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendants shared the land indicated in the order in proportion to each share indicated in the order, and that the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the land.

Thus, the plaintiff can request the court to divide the above land against the defendants.

(Article 269(1) of the Civil Act). Furthermore, if it is impossible to divide the article jointly owned in kind with respect to the method of partition in kind or if it is anticipated that the value of the article would be reduced remarkably, the court may order the payment by auction (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). In the case of subdivision in kind, it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article jointly owned in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned in kind.

Therefore, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the location, area, shares ratio, and uniting of the above land into two parcels, it appears that one of them would be a blind land, and the Plaintiff, without changing the purport of the claim, stated that the Plaintiff wishes to divide the price by auction on the date of pleading without changing the purport of the claim, and there is no way to hear the opinion because the whereabouts of the Defendants are unknown, etc., it is appropriate to divide the above land by auction.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons, and its method shall be based on the payment division by auction, and it is decided as per Disposition.