1. The plaintiff and the other money obtained by deducting the auction costs from the proceeds by selling each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet at an auction.

1. Each land (attached Form 1; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) listed on the annexed sheet of basic facts is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, as shown in the attached sheet, as the co-ownership shares in the attached sheet.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1 through 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the reasonable method of partition of each of the instant lands constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind. Thus, the reasonable method of partition of each of the instant lands is to sell each of the instant lands by auction, and then distribute the remaining amount after deducting auction expenses from the proceeds thereof to the Plaintiff and the

With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for auction partition of the land No. 1, the remaining Defendants except Defendant C (hereinafter “Bs Defendants”) did not consent thereto or express any specific objection.

However, while opposing the above auction division claim of the plaintiff, the defendant C merely asserts that "any clear co-ownership is requested to be divided," and did not present any opinion as to the specific method of the in-kind division.

In addition, although Defendant C conducted a survey to divide the land No. 1 in kind, it is argued that it was difficult for Defendant C to divide the land in kind on the ground of cadastral inconsistency.

In addition, if the land No. 1 of this case is divided in kind, the area acquired by the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants is not less than 3.2 square meters and the use value, etc. is likely to be significantly reduced.

[B] Even if only the Defendants remain in common, the remaining Defendants are merely 12.8 square meters of land partitioned by the Defendants (3.2 square meters in each place x 4).

The first land of this case was owned by H and the remaining Defendants, respectively, 3.2/66 shares, and Defendant C owned 50/66 shares, but the Plaintiff.