1. The remainder after selling 655 square meters of miscellaneous land E in Chungcheongnam-gun to auction at auction and deducting the auction expenses from the price.

1. The networkF shared 3/9 shares, Defendant A, B, and D shares in 2/9 shares, respectively.

The Plaintiff purchased 2/9 shares of Defendant D’s 2/9 during the public sale procedure for the instant land and completed the registration of transfer of shares on April 3, 2015.

On the land of this case, there are 122.85 square meters in a wooden roof and a bridge, the registration of preservation of ownership of which has been made in the name of the deceased F, and 122.85 square meters in a wooden roof and a bridge, a single-story livestock shed (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

The networkF died in around 2009, and the Defendants inherited the shares of 3/9 on the instant land of the deceased F and the ownership of the instant building.

(C) The co-ownership share of the land of this case at present is as shown in the separate sheet. (4) The co-ownership share of the land of this case at present is as shown in the separate sheet.

G Around May 4, 1998, leased the instant land, the instant building, and the instant land, 720 square meters, etc. adjacent to the Chungcheong Hong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung, adjacent to the instant land, and has been occupied and used until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 4 (including branch numbers if there is a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as co-owners of the instant land, may seek a partition from the Defendants. In full view of the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ co-ownership share in the instant land, the location and shape of the instant land, the size and shape of the remaining land excluding the part on which the instant building exists among the instant land, the use status and surrounding circumstances of the instant land, the parties’ intent and relationship, etc., the instant land constitutes either a case where it is impossible to divide it in kind, or the value of the instant land might be significantly reduced due

Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the remaining amount of the land of this case, which was put up for an auction and deducted the auction cost from the price, into the share ratio of shares among the plaintiff and the defendants.