1. The remainder of the sale price, which is 417 square meters F. F., Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and deducts the auction cost from the sale price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns the share of 4/11 and the share of 7/11 by Defendant B with respect to F-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun (hereinafter “F-gun”).

B. Regarding F’s share of 64909/178500 shares, Defendant B’s share of 8109/178500 shares, Defendant C owned 16250/17850 shares, and Defendant D owned 16250/17850 shares of 16250/17850 shares.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since each of the instant lands asserted by the Plaintiff is impossible to divide in kind, it is necessary to divide the price by auction.

B. It is reasonable to divide the entirety of the F land asserted by the Defendants into the Plaintiff’s sole ownership, and the G land into the Defendants’ joint ownership.

3. In full view of the reasoning of the argument as a whole in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, F land is a franchisor, and G land is connected with cement packaging of about 3 to 4 meters wide by its side.

In addition, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings, that is, the Defendant’s sole ownership of the F land, and the Plaintiff’s demand for the division of the G land in kind with the content that the entire land is owned by the Defendants, and the division by other means is all rejected (the Defendants demand the division of the land in kind in the manner as seen earlier, even if the order to present the proposal for the division in kind with respect to the entire land of this case is required), and the Plaintiff does not want the auction division as to each land of this case and want to own the F land independently, and the interests of the co-owners are inconsistent with each other, and the co-owners can be satisfied.