1. The plaintiff shall sell the real estate listed in the annex 1 to auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole, the facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and the facts that the parties did not reach an agreement on partition of co-owned property as to the instant land between the aforementioned parties.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the remaining co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. According to the evidence of the method of subdivision, the following facts are: (a) on Defendant F’s share, the registration of creation of a mortgage near the debtor P P Co., Ltd., the mortgagee Q2, on October 30, 2019; (b) the land in this case cannot be divided into less than 200 square meters as farmland implementing the agricultural infrastructure development and expansion project; (c) co-owners or 13 of the land in this case; (d) the Plaintiff or the Defendants did not present a detailed method of in-kind division; and (e) considering the fact that the Plaintiff or the Defendants did not express their intent to sell the Plaintiff’s share, the method of in-kind division is difficult or inappropriate to ensure the equitable division among co-owners while maintaining the utility value of the land in this case.

Considering the circumstances above (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). It is the most equitable and reasonable method to sell the land of this case at auction and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price to co-owners according to the share sharing ratio.

3. According to the conclusion, the land of this case is sold by auction and the payment is to be made in installments as per Disposition.