1. The real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list 1 is put to an auction and the auction cost is deducted from the price;

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff, defendant B, and C shared the real estate listed in the annexed Table No. 1 List No. 1 (hereinafter "land No. 1") with shares in the same list No. 2. ② The plaintiff and the defendants share the real estate listed in the annexed Table No. 2 list No. 1 with shares in the same list No. 2 (hereinafter "land No. 2" and "each land of this case" are referred to as "the land No. 1"). ③ The plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the division method of each land of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff, co-owner of each land of this case, can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.2. The method of partition of co-owned property pursuant to the annexed Table No. 1 can be divided in kind or in kind according to the co-owners' share in the judgment.

"The requirement does not physically strictly interpret it, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, the situation of use, and the use value after the division.

(2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the purport of each entry in the health belt, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, or the entire purport of the film and pleading as to the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). (2) In other words, each land of this case differs from co-owners and their shares by land, and since a vinyl, etc. is installed on the ground, it is practically difficult to divide the instant land according to the ratio of shares between the plaintiff and the defendants. (2) In the case of defendant D, only 1/5 shares of the instant land No. 2