1. The sum of the F 164 square meters and G 5 square meters at the same time in the East Sea, which is put up for an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction expenses from the price.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land Nos. 1 and 2 in proportion to Plaintiff 3/7 and the Defendants’ 1/7 shares. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of each of the above real estate, which is public property by the closing date of argument in this case. Thus, the Plaintiff, the co-owner of each of the above real estate, can file a claim against the Defendants, the other co-owners, for partition of each of the above real estate pursuant to

2. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the partition of co-owned property by auction division as to each of the above real estate, and the Defendants submitted a written answer to the effect that there is no intention to divide, and thereafter asserted that each of the above real estate should be divided in kind.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff proposed the method of dividing each of the above real estate in kind, the Defendants expressed their intention to divide each of the above real estate again.

Meanwhile, considering the fact that the total area of each of the above real estate is less than 169 square meters and it is deemed that the utility value of each of the above real estate would significantly decline, the above real estate constitutes a case where each of the above real estate cannot be divided in kind, and thus, it is fair and reasonable to divide the price according to its equity ratio and the Plaintiff and the Defendants sold the above real estate at auction.

3. In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by deciding to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds that each of the above real estate was sold to an auction to the plaintiff and the defendants in their respective shares.