1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who sold 1918 square meters J 1918.3 square meters to an auction at E.S. and deducted the auction costs from the proceeds.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the share in the corresponding column of “public land portion” in attached Table 1 with respect to the land of J 1918 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The location and form of the instant land is as shown in the attached Form 2.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the partition of co-owned property until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Grounds for Recognition: The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the co-owned property partition claim, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may claim the partition of the pertinent land against the Defendants, who are co-owners.

B. A method of partition of co-owned property 1) In a case where a co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind with the value, the auction of the property may be ordered, and “the co-owned property shall not be divided in kind” here is not physically strict interpretation but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009).

The following circumstances revealed based on the above recognized facts and recognized evidence, i.e., the location, form, area, use of the land of this case, the use of the land of this case after division, the use value of each share of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, etc., are difficult to find an appropriate method of in-kind division. ② The Plaintiff and Defendant B wished to divide the price by auction. On the other hand, the remaining Defendants except the above Defendant did not present the method of subdivision of the land of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not divide the land in kind