Attached Form

The land specified in the list 1 shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be attached.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant land, but the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division until the date of closing the pleadings of this case. The fact that there was no dispute between the parties or is significant in this court.

Since the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the land division method, the Plaintiff may file a judicial claim against the Defendants for the division of the instant land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

We examine the method of partition of co-owned property.

The following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant C requires only the Plaintiff’s share to be put to an auction, but in such case, it is highly likely that the Plaintiff’s share might be evaluated compared to the auction of the entire land, Defendant D did not present any position in the delivery of the complaint of this case, Defendant E does not oppose the in-kind division even in the auction division, and Defendant E is the position to oppose the in-kind division. Considering all the circumstances such as the area, location, and use of the land of this case, it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the land of this case in kind, and it is reasonable

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the remaining amount of the land of this case, which was put up for auction and deducted from the auction cost, shall be distributed to the plaintiff and the defendants