1. Attached Form 1 shall be put to an auction for real estate and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be attached Form 2.

1. As to the real estate listed in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff shares 2/3 and S shares 1/3.

S As of July 30, 1971, upon the death of July 30, 1971, the Defendants finally succeeded to the share of co-ownership listed in Annex 2, but the inheritance registration following inheritance was not completed.

There is no agreement as to the method of partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff is a co-owned share holder of the land of this case and can file a claim for partition of the land of this case with the defendants pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, and the agreement on partition of co-owned property was not formed. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property

B. As to the method of partition of co-owned property, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: (i) the land category of this case is two lots of land, the previous and forest land category; (ii) considering the individual area and form of the land of this case, and the size of shares owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is deemed difficult for the Plaintiff and the Defendants to fairly divide the land of this case in kind according to their respective share ratios, and thus, it is difficult or inappropriate to seek fair partition among co-owners while maintaining the utility value of the land of

Therefore, inasmuch as it is the most equitable and reasonable method to divide the price through an auction, it is to divide the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price by selling the instant land to an auction and then distributing it to the Plaintiff and the Defendants according to the share of co-ownership indicated in attached Table 2.

3. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is with merit.