1. Each of the amounts calculated by deducting the auction expense from the proceeds by attaching 399.5 square meters to an auction in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu.

1. Judgment on the partition claim of the article jointly owned

A. According to the purport of evidence No. 7-1 of the partition of co-owned property Gap and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiffs and the Defendants shared 399.5 square meters in share in the order No. 1 of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the land of this case”), and that there was no agreement as to the method of dividing the land of this case, which is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants, between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs are co-owners of the land of this case and may request the defendants who are other co-owners to divide the land of this case.

Furthermore, as to the method of partition of the jointly-owned property, the method of partition of the jointly-owned property can be divided in kind in principle, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or if it is possible to divide in kind in kind, the value of the property may be reduced remarkably, an auction can be ordered to pay in kind.

However, considering the circumstances such as the fact that the instant land is a site and it is substantially difficult to divide it physically because the third floor building exists on the ground, and that there is no co-owner to purchase the instant land, and that the Defendants are refusing to share it, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price to auction and then deducting the auction cost to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants’ shares.

B. (1) As to the Defendants’ assertion, K of the summary of the claim purchased the part of the Plaintiffs’ share in the instant land and possessed the instant land solely, and thereafter, the Defendants succeeded to the Plaintiff’s property. Since the period for possession of the Plaintiffs’ share in the instant land expires 20 years, the entire land of this case is owned by the Defendants, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim for the partition of the Plaintiffs’ jointly owned property premised on the sharing of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is unreasonable.

dr.