1. The remainder of money obtained by selling at an auction the area of 1,497 square meters prior to Gyeongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, and deducting the costs of auction from the proceeds of sale.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, A, T, net U, and net V shared the share of 1/4 shares in the 1/4 shares of the 1,497 square meters prior to Gyeongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun S. (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. 1) On September 7, 2014, the Plaintiff B died and succeeded to the shares of T on September 7, 2014 by consultation and division. 2) U succeeded to U as of July 10, 2010, Defendant H, I, J, K L, M, and N, the spouse and children.

The spouse died on January 7, 2014, and the above children succeeded W.

3) On March 8, 1991, V died and succeeded to Defendant D, E,O, F, and GV, the spouse and children of the Plaintiff. On December 8, 2017, theO succeeded to theO as the husband, Defendant P, Defendant Q, and R, the husband of the Defendant P, the children of the Plaintiff. C. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not have any dispute over the method of dividing the instant land up to the present date. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, each fact inquiry into the X office at the time X office of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of the entire arguments.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant land, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Generally, the division of co-owned property by judgment is in principle made in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable division according to each co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind in kind or if it is anticipated that the value might be reduced remarkably, the auction may be ordered to pay in kind. Here, the term "the case that can not be divided in kind" includes cases where it is not physically strict interpretation, but it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.).