1. Part 1 of the attached Table 1 among the real estate listed in the attached list, connected in sequence 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 4, 2006 with respect to the share of 331/827 out of the instant real estate on grounds of sale on June 21, 2006, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on grounds of sale on April 29, 2014 with respect to the share of 496/827 out of the said real estate on grounds of voluntary auction on April 29, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not hold consultation on the method of partition of the pertinent land until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the real estate of this case is divided in kind, the value of the real estate of this case is likely to be significantly reduced, the auction division should be made.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the real estate of this case should be divided in kind according to the shares.

B. Determination-sharing is a form of co-ownership of an article, and one ownership of the article is divided in quantity into several persons. Thus, barring special circumstances, each co-owner has the right to abolish the existing co-ownership by unilaterally claiming a partition of the article jointly owned and to realize a legal relationship that distributes the article jointly owned among the co-owners.

Furthermore, in the method of division, if there is an agreement between the parties, the method may be selected at will, but in the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by a trial due to a lack of agreement, the court may, in principle, order the auction of the goods only when it is possible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind in kind or if it is impossible to divide it in kind in kind, or the value of the property is considerably reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring such circumstances, the court should divide the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind according to the ratio of shares of each co-owner, and make a judgment recognizing

3.2