1. The real estate listed in the annexed Table 1 shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price;

1. Claim against Defendant B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, and L

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant E and G

A. Facts of recognition 1) Real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”)

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared their respective shares in the attached list No. 2.2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the division of their jointly-owned properties pertaining to the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

B. 1) According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim a partition against the above defendants as to the method of partition of co-owned property pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act. 2) If the agreement on the method of partition of co-owned property does not lead to an agreement on the method of partition, co-owner may claim the partition to the court. If it is impossible to divide in kind or if the value is likely to be reduced remarkably due to the division, the court may order an auction of

(Article 269 of the Civil Act). Co-owned property partition by judgment is, in principle, divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of co-owners. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, and if it is apprehended that the value would be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and use value after the division.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, each of the evidence and evidence mentioned above are examined and examined.