Attached Form

The remainder of the real estate stated in the list referred to an auction and after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the rate of 1/5, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not hold a divided consultation on the instant real estate.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may request the co-owner of the instant real estate to divide the jointly owned property under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act against the remaining co-owners.

In addition, the division of the co-owned property by the trial shall be made in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable division according to the share of each co-owner, but it is not possible to divide the property in kind in the form of money.

The requirement does not physically strictly interpret the requirement, and it also includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the real property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and use value after the division (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002, etc.). In light of the above legal principle, the health class, Defendant C’s whereabouts are unknown, and the remaining Defendants do not present a plan for dividing the real property in kind that can be divided in a fair and pattern. In light of the location, area, use condition, and use value of the land of this case, it is the most equitable and reasonable method to sell the real property at auction and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction expense from the price to co-owners according to the share of public land.

3. In conclusion, the land of this case is to be divided by auction in installments, and it is so decided as per Disposition.