1. Glue City, Seosan-si, G 701 square meters, H 327 square meters, and I large 707 square meters shall be put to an auction, and the auction expenses shall be deducted from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared at the ratio of shares in the text of the instant land, the G 701m2, H 327m2, and the Ix 707m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) On July 2, 2017, J, a co-owner of the instant land’s registry, died on July 2, 2017, and the Defendants, a child of J, succeeded to the shares of J in their respective shares of 1/5).

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

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, one of the co-owners of the land of this case can file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the land of this case based on his co-ownership.

B. In principle, division of co-owned property by judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, but in the payment division, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation of the co-owned property, 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 by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). Since the area of the land of this case is not wide, it is inappropriate to divide the land at the share of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Defendant B, and E agree to the auction division claim, and Defendant C, D, and F are served with the written complaint of this case.