1. The remainder of 1030 square meters before J in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and the auction cost is deducted from the proceeds of auction.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned 2/15 shares, Defendant B’s 3/15 shares, Defendant C, D, Nonparty K, Defendant E, and F owned 2/15 shares, respectively.

B. The Defendant G, H, and I, a child, died and jointly succeeded to the case.

C. The consultation on the method of partition between the original and the Defendants on the instant real estate did not reach the date of the closing of the argument.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

(b) In case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, if the co-owned property is divided in kind with the one in which a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the value thereof may decrease remarkably,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002, etc.). In the instant case, in light of the following: (a) where co-owners of the instant real estate divide the instant real estate in kind into several persons, the area of each co-owner’s own land becomes extremely small; and (b) the instant real estate becomes virtually impossible to cultivate the land in such a case before the land category is a land category; (c) the instant real estate constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant real estate in kind.

Therefore, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price that the instant real estate was sold to an auction to the original and the Defendants according to the ratio of their shares in ownership.

3. The conclusion is that the real estate of this case is to be paid in installments as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.