1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 which is put for auction and the auction cost is deducted from the price;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The register of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) is listed as the Plaintiff’s share of 2/5, Defendant B B 1/5, the net M 1/5, and the network N 1/5.

B. Defendant C, D, and E are the successors of the network M.

Defendant F, G, H, I, J, K, and L are the successors or successors of the network N.

C. Until the date of closing argument of the instant case, no agreement on the method of dividing the instant land was reached.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 9 through 15 (including branch numbers if there is a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of the instant land against the Defendants, another co-owner, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. A method of partition of co-owned property can be divided in kind in a case of dividing the co-owned property through a trial, in principle, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value of the co-owned property is likely to be significantly reduced, an auction of the co-owned property may be ordered. Here, the requirement includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the co-owned property, and where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use status, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature of the co-owned property, location, and use status, and use value after the division. Further, even if the co-owner is allowed to divide it in kind, it includes cases where the value of the property to be owned by the co-owner might be significantly reduced compared with the share value before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 1993; 2013Da2675.