1. The plaintiff 7/10. 7/10. 7/10.

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff shares 7/10 shares in the plaintiff, and the defendant shares 3/10 shares, and the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of division by the date of closing argument in the case, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, the plaintiff, who is the co-ownership owner of the land in the case, has the right to claim a partition of the land in question against the defendant.

B. However, the Defendant did not state its position on the purchase price for division by the value compensation in the way of purchasing shares, and when comprehensively considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the structure, area, location, use status, and the party attitude, etc. of the instant land recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, including the fact that there is an unauthorized building on the ground of the instant land, etc., the instant land constitutes a case where it is difficult to divide in kind the instant land into lots or where it is highly likely that its value might be significantly decreased due to the spot division, because it is difficult to find any kind of goods division or other appropriate means of division that correspond to the share ratio of

Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case through a method of payment by auction.

2. According to the conclusion, the land of this case is sold at auction and the amount calculated by deducting auction expenses from the price shall be distributed to the plaintiff and the defendant in proportion to their respective shares. However, in consideration of the nature and circumstances of this case, the costs of this case shall be borne by each party and they shall be