1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and the whole purport of the pleadings, the facts that the plaintiff and the defendants own each share in the ratio of shares stated in the claims of the land in this case, and the land in this case is designated as a land scheduled for replotting within the land readjustment project district.

As a claim in this case, the plaintiff sought a payment by auction of the land in this case, so it is not allowed to see the previous lot number and the previous claim for partition of the article jointly owned with the land in the state of land scheduled for substitution (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da2464, Feb. 18, 1969). Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is dismissed as it is without merit.