1. The remaining amount of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list after it is put to an auction and the auction cost is deducted;

1. Co-owned property partition claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared share of the same share as that indicated in the separate sheet No. 3. 2) The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land was not reached by the date of closing argument.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the land of this case under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

(a) In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced, the auction of the property may be ordered, and in this case, it shall not be physically strictly interpreted, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

In this case, the following circumstances revealed through the argument of this case, the plan for the division of goods in kind, which the plaintiff wants, is unilaterally favorable to the plaintiff, and only the part which the plaintiff wants to own, appears to be favorable to the plaintiff. The defendant F, without applying for the survey and appraisal on the plan for the division of goods in kind, the plaintiff voluntarily submitted the line in the cadastral map and submitted it on the cadastral map, and the plaintiff did not apply for the fair market price appraisal, and there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants on the division of goods in kind or the division by the method of acquiring the other party's shares until the date of closing argument.