1. Attached Form 2. The remaining money obtained by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale by attaching the real estate stated in Attached Form 1 to the auction.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff shares the real estate listed in the attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) with the Defendants as shares in the attached Form 2 co-owners and the shares indicated in the attached Form 1.

B. On the ground of the instant land, unregistered buildings exist.

C. The Plaintiff intended to purchase the Defendants’ shares from the Defendants, but did not reach an agreement on the partition of co-owned property between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and most of the Defendants did not dispute the Plaintiff’s auction partition claim.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendants shared the land of this case and did not reach agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the plaintiff can file a claim against the defendants for the partition of the land of this case based on his share of co-ownership, barring special circumstances.

The method of partition of co-owned property by judgment may be divided in kind in principle, or, if it is impossible to divide in kind or if it is possible to divide in kind in kind, or if it is apprehended to decrease remarkably in its value, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind.

As seen earlier, in light of the circumstances where buildings unregistered to the instant land exist, and most Defendants do not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim for auction partition, it constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to allow multiple co-owners to exercise their own ownership in kind.

Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case into an auction and the remaining money after deducting the auction cost from the price, in a way of distributing the share between the plaintiff and the defendants in proportion to their co-ownership.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case was accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the litigation cost is assessed in consideration of the circumstances where the co-owned property partition agreement was not reached.