1. Each land listed in the separate list of real estate shall be referred to each auction and the auction cost shall be deducted from each price;

1. In full view of the purport of each of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the facts constituting the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each of the lands listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”) in the same proportion of shares as indicated in the separate sheet of shares of the parties, and the fact that the agreement on the method of dividing each of the lands of this case was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

2. In principle, in a case where an article jointly owned is divided by a judgment on the claim for partition of the article jointly owned, the court shall divide the article jointly owned into several articles in kind according to the share ratio of each co-owner, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da92506, Mar. 10, 201). However, in a case where the article jointly owned is divided by a trial, if the value of the article is unable to be divided in kind or is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered if it is impossible or inappropriate to divide the article in kind (see, e.g., Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). Here, the requirement does not physically strictly interpret it, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002, etc.). In full view of Gap evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-1 and evidence No. 2-2, the plaintiff filed a claim for partition of co-owned property against S and defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, H, K, K, L, M, N, P, Q, Q, R, and R. On April 26, 201, the Suwon District Court rendered an order for partition of co-owned property by means of auction under the Enforcement Decree No. 2014Ga34607 Decided April 26, 2017, but the judgment was rendered, among each land of this case during the proceeding of the lawsuit.