The Plaintiff and the remainder of the real estate stated in the attached list 1, which was sold to auction and deducted from the auction cost.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in proportion to the following shares, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

Co-ownership of Plaintiff B 1323/14281, Defendant C 1653/14281, Defendant C 1653/14281, Defendant D 1652/14281, Defendant G1653/14281, Defendant H 1653/14281, Defendant H 1653/14281, Defendant A 1057/14281/ [Grounds for Recognition] 1653/14281, Defendant J. 1653/14281

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as 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 Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In the case of dividing the co-owned property through a trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the auction of the property may be ordered if the value might be significantly reduced. The requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property, and it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind if the value of the property might be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind." This includes cases where even a co-owner might cause a decrease in the value of the property to be owned by himself in kind even if it is a person who was divided in kind (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009).