1. 2,010 square meters prior to the date of the sale to an auction and the remaining amount which remains after deducting the auction expenses from the price.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 3 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff owned 8/44 shares among the real estate recorded in the order (hereinafter “instant land”), 3/44 shares, and 11/44 shares, respectively, by Defendant C, D, and E, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land until the date of closing argument.

Therefore, one of the co-owners of the instant land can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are the remaining co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall, in principle, be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be substantially damaged due to such division, the proceeds thereof shall

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act: Provided, That the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" in the payment shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned, and the use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). The land of this case is seriously definite form in one direction and two graves are installed, so it is considerably difficult to seek the method of spot distribution in line with the equity among co-owners. In such a situation, the Defendants did not express any opinion on division or contact with each other, and if the land of this case is divided according to the size corresponding to each share ratio, the land owned by the Defendant is very narrow and so the utility value of the land is significantly decline.