1. Attached Form;

1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall provide the remainder of the proceeds of the auction after selling the given real estate at an auction.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendants attached Form

1. Attached Form 1 of the indicated real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”);

2. Co-ownership is in the same proportion as the description.

B. There was no special agreement on the prohibition of partition regarding the instant real estate, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the instant real estate.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim a partition of each of the instant real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

B. In light of the following facts and the circumstances revealed from the above, the use and size of the real estate of this case, the number of co-owners, and the possibility of consultation among co-owners, etc., the real estate of this case seems to fall under cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the real estate of this case in kind in light of its nature.

Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the common property in a way that the Plaintiff and the Defendants distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the sale price by selling the instant real property at auction.

1) When the Plaintiff divides the instant real estate in kind, the area of the land owned by each person is too small and its value is considerably diminished, and it is considerably difficult to hold consultations on the method of division due to the Defendants’ lack of contact with the Defendants.

The Defendants asserted that the pertinent real estate should be sold at auction and distributed in proportion to the share of public land.

2) The Defendants, other than Defendant C and E, did not reply to the division method even after receiving the duplicate of the complaint stating the Plaintiff’s assertion, and Defendant C and E wished to divide in kind.