1. The remaining amount of 1,426.9 square meters of land for factory in Kimpo-si shall be put to an auction and the auction cost shall be deducted from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the share of 1,426.9 square meters of land for factory in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Until the date of the closing of the argument in this case, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the instant real estate.

C. On the ground of the instant real estate, a factory that is not owned by a third party is located.

【Defendant B, C, the heir E of the network D, the heir of F, G, H, N,O, P, S, and network L, and the heir X of the deceased L: The facts that the Defendants did not clearly dispute (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) that the Defendants did not dispute against the M, Q, R, T, and V of Defendant I, K, the heir of the network L: The non-contentious facts; the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3; the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a partition claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition shall, in principle, be made by the method of spot partition in so far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to each co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such possibility, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered to divide the price by the so-called price partition.

The requirement that a "in-kind shall not be divided in kind" is not a physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, the use value after the division, the share ratio of co-owners in ownership, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). As to the instant case.