1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds by selling it to an auction to the 446 square meters in Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for partition of co-owned property.

However, as seen earlier 2. As seen in the foregoing, the instant real estate satisfies the requirements for the partition of co-owned property, and the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed unlawful solely by the Defendants’ assertion.

Therefore, the defendants' defense prior to the merits is without merit.

2. Claim for partition of co-owned property;

A. There is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, the real estate of this case is jointly owned by the plaintiff, the appointed party, and the defendants according to the ratio of shares as stated in the Disposition No. 1, and there was no agreement on partition of co-owned property as to the real estate of this case until the date of closing argument of this case, and there

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, etc., a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269 of the Civil Act.

3. Method of partition of the article jointly owned;

A. In principle, a method of partition of co-owned property by a wrong judgment is to be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be significantly reduced if it is made in kind, an auction may be ordered to divide it. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide it in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's share.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

With respect to this case, the land category of this case is limited to 446 square meters, and the area of this case is limited to the site area.