1. The real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be attached to each auction and the auction expenses shall be deducted from the proceeds thereof;

1. Each real estate listed in the separate list of the facts of recognition was shared by the net T (U), V (W), net X (W) and Y (Z) shares, respectively.

The deceased on June 16, 1990 and his wife AB(AB) and Defendant H (a woman who was married on February 12, 1960 and no longer in the same family register at the time) and the deceased AC(AD) inherit.

AA died on August 9, 1995 and succeeded to Defendant H and net AC, its children.

On May 19, 2012, the network AC died and succeeded to Defendant I, Defendant J, Defendant K and Defendant L, who is his wife, and his wife.

V, on November 4, 1994, donated all of the shares of the real estate listed in Schedule 1 attached hereto to the Plaintiff A.

On August 8, 1988, V donated to Nonparty AE the entire share of the real estate listed in Schedule 2, and Nonparty AE donated this on November 4, 1994 to Plaintiff A on the same day.

The networkY died on December 15, 199 and succeeded to Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and the network AF, their children.

The net AF died on October 15, 200 and succeeded to Defendant E, F, and Defendant G, his wife.

On June 13, 198, the deceased on June 13, 1988, Defendant N, who is his wife, Defendant N, Defendant P, Defendant P, Defendant Q, Defendant R (a woman who was married on December 7, 197 and no longer in the same family register at the time) and Defendant S succeeded to the same family register.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the division method of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is public property, until the closing date of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Although consultation on the method of division was held through the date of adjustment of the method of division or the date of pleading, there was no means to be presented in addition to the Plaintiff’s proposal. According to the Plaintiff’s proposal, there was a difference in the value as to the franchises depending on the location of the same area.