1. The answer C. 645 square meters, D. 572 square meters, and E. 777 square meters shall be put to an auction and the auction expenses shall be deducted from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the land of this case, the Plaintiff is 4/5 shares, and the Defendant shares each of the above land in the share of 1/5 shares, with respect to C/C 645 square meters, D 572 square meters, and E 77 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. Each of the instant lands is located in a planned management area, and its location and form are as shown in the cadastral map in the annexed sheet.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the partition of co-owned property by the date of the closing of argument.

[Evidence Evidence: Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole video and oral argument]

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the co-owned property partition claim, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each of the lands of this case, may claim the partition of each of the lands of this case against the Defendant, who is another co-owner.

B. 1) In a case where a partition of co-owned property is divided into a judgment, if it is impossible to divide the co-owned property in kind or if it is possible to divide it into money in kind, the auction of the property may be ordered if the value thereof might be significantly reduced. Here, the requirement that "shall not be divided into money in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009).

Considering the following circumstances revealed by the above facts of recognition and their recognized evidence, namely, ① the form, size and location of each land of this case, the utilization status, the ratio of shares of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the use value of each part after the in-kind division, and the accessibility to the road, it is difficult to find an appropriate method of in-kind division that gives economic satisfaction corresponding to the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it is possible to divide each of the land of this case in kind.