1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff 1/4, the Defendant 1/2, and the Intervenor 1/4, respectively, in proportion to the shares of the Plaintiff, and there is a building listed in the separate sheet 2 on the ground of the instant land.

The plaintiff, the defendant and the purchaser did not reach an agreement on the division method of the land of this case.

B. Since the instant land is located in a commercial area, the area of each land divided pursuant to Article 57 of the Building Act, Article 80 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 34 of the Building Bylaws, shall be at least 150 square meters.

C. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the transferee did not reach an agreement on the division method of the instant land by the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the fact inquiry results in November 22, 2017 about the opticalyang City, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, co-owner of the land of this case, as co-owner, may file a claim for partition of the land of this case against the Defendant, co-owner, and the Intervenor.

B. A method of partition of co-owned property 1) In a case where a co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind with the money, the auction of the property may be ordered, and “the co-owned property shall not be divided in kind” here 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, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the property concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009).