1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;

1. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party, and the Defendants share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) at the share ratio of 580/8 of 165, 520/8, 165, 165/8, 165/8, 57/8165, 1157/8, 8165, and 4198/4165 of the instant land by the closing date of the argument. The aforementioned parties did not have an agreement on partition of the instant land by the closing date of the argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) as co-owned share holder of the instant land, and the remaining co-owned share holders, may claim partition of co-owned property as to the instant land against the Defendants who are co-owned share holders.

B. As to the method of partition of specific jointly-owned property, the following circumstances recognized by the Health Division, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings are restricted: (i) land less than 60m2 is divided, namely, according to the Urban Planning Ordinance of Seocheon-gun and Building Ordinance, and the land of this case is less than 57m2. The area of defendant B is less than 57m2 if the land of this case is divided in kind. (ii) The land of this case is surrounded by land of 10m2 as quasi-preserved mountainous district. The surrounding land is surrounded by forest, field, field, and field without road. The method of equal sharing the economic value of each land to be reverted to co-owners after the division is not possible. (iii) The defendant Eul divided the specific portion of the land of this case into the land of this case into the appraisal value at the time of the successful bid, the defendant Eul sought a partition in kind with the appraisal value at the time of the successful bid, and the remaining defendant C did not present any opinion.