1. The Plaintiff shall sell the 798 square meters in Ansan-si to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entry of evidence No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff owned 566/798 shares in Ansan-si Co., Ltd. and the Defendant owned 232/798 shares, and the fact that consultation on the method of partition as to the above land did not lead to an agreement on the method of partition.

According to this, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may claim the partition of the instant land against the Defendant, who is another co-owner pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. In light of all the circumstances, such as ① a method of partition of co-owned property and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of partition in kind, ② a co-owned property as the plaintiff’s assertion in the complaint (the part occupied by the plaintiff is owned by the plaintiff, and the remaining land is divided as owned by the defendant) a land to be owned by the defendant, ③ there is little possibility of utilization as to the land to be owned by the defendant if the partition of co-owned property is made in accordance with the primary purport of the complaint, ④ the land location or area of the land in this case, etc. are difficult to find the method of partition in kind in the manner that does not undermine substantial fairness between the plaintiff and the defendant, since the land in this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind due to its nature, it appears that it would be the most equitable and reasonable method to sell the land in this case after selling it to auction and distribute

3. Conclusion, the land of this case is to be divided by auction in installments, and it is so decided as per Disposition.