1. The remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale by selling the land listed in the separate sheet 1; and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the net G shared 1/2 shares, respectively. However, as the network G died on October 9, 2004, Defendant B, one of his wife, jointly inherited 2/22 shares, respectively. The remaining Defendants, one of their children, jointly inherited 2/22 shares.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the partition of co-owned property until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] 1 to 1 to 4 items, fact-finding results, purport of the whole pleadings, and facts not clearly asserted

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the co-owned property partition claim, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim the partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, another co-owner.

B. In a case where a partition of co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide the co-owned property in kind or if the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced, an auction of the property may be ordered. Here, the requirement does not physically be interpreted strictly, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009). In this case, the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the facts and evidence evidence presented in this case, namely, in light of the form of the land in this case, if the plaintiff divides the property as sought in the primary purport of the claim, the use value of the land after the division is obviously low, and the defendants' access to the land in this case is difficult between the Defendants.