1.In accordance with the process of litigation and participation in the trial, the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Cheongju-si.

1. Co-owned property partition claim

(a) The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings:

1) The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the acquisition intervenor are deemed to be the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the acquisition intervenor, in the Cheongju-si, Y-gu, Y-gu, Y57,32

2) The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Intervenor shared shares in the separate list column. 2) The agreement on the method of dividing the instant land has not been reached until now between the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Intervenor.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim against the Defendants and the Intervenor, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land, which is jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

(a) In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is anticipated that its value will be significantly reduced, the auction of the article may be ordered, and in this case, it shall not be physically strictly interpreted, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property in light of the nature, location, and use value after the division.

I would like to say.

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

In light of such legal principles, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in the health belt, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the area of the land of this case is considerably larger than 657,322 square meters, and the co-owners are also 25 persons, and the share ratio is different, and thus it is deemed difficult to divide the instant land by the spot method. ② One of the parties, the Defendants, and the Intervenors purchase all the shares of the other party.