1. The Plaintiff shall sell the 295m2 to the public auction of Kimhae-si I and the remaining money which remains after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Of the land of this case, the Plaintiff owned 221459/314080 shares, Defendant B owned 84567/314080 shares, and Defendant C and J owned 4027/314080 shares, respectively.

B. The J died on October 31, 2002, and jointly inherited shares of Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H as one-six shares, but did not complete the inheritance registration on the instant land.

C. At present, the Plaintiff’s shares in the instant land are 1328754/184480; Defendant B’s shares are 507402/18480; Defendant C’s shares are 28189/18480; Defendant D, E, F, G, and H’s shares are 4027/18480, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If an agreement on the method of partition of co-owned property is not reached, co-owners may apply for partition to the court.

(Article 269(1) of the Civil Act. Article 269(1) of the Civil Act provides that the co-owned property shall be divided in kind, but if it is impossible or possible to divide in kind the property in kind, if the price is likely to decrease substantially due to the impossibility of

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da6746 delivered on June 11, 1999, etc.). B.

Since the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of the jointly owned property by the closing date of the pleadings of the instant case, the Defendants were served with a duplicate of the complaint of the instant case (the Defendants did not appear in the trial after submitting the written reply stating that “the Plaintiff did not claim the Defendants to divide the jointly owned property or agreed on the purchase of shares,” and the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants for the division

C. We examine the method of division.

The plaintiff is seeking to divide through auction division, and the defendants do not submit specific opinions on the method of dividing the land of this case. The area of the land of this case is very large to each person when the land of this case is divided in kind according to each share of the plaintiff and the defendants.