1. The plaintiff shall sell the total area of 337 square meters before Busan Young-gu E to auction and deduct the auction expenses from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant land in their respective shares of shares of Plaintiff B4/60, Defendant B 10/60, Defendant C10/60, and Defendant D16/60.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts acknowledged, one of the co-owners of the land of this case may claim the partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

3. If the method of partition of co-owned property, in kind, is impossible to divide it in kind, or the value thereof might be reduced remarkably due to such division, the court may order an auction of things; and

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. In principle, division of co-owned property by trial shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" in the price division is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use of the co-owned property, use value after the partition, etc.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). In this case, health team, the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C did not object to the division of the instant land as indicated in the disposition of the instant land. Defendant D did not present any opinion without submitting a written reply, and the instant land did not present any opinion on the date of pleading.