1. The plaintiff shall sell the value of 75m2 in Ulsan-gu E prior to the auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

1. The facts based on which the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each 1/4 share of the land set forth in the Disposition No. 1. As of the date of closing the argument of this case, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the land set forth in the Disposition No. 1 does not conflict between the parties, or that the overall purport

2. The co-owners may request a partition of the article jointly owned (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act), and if the consultation on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, the co-owners may request a court to divide the article jointly owned (Article 269(1) of the Civil Act). If it is impossible to divide the article jointly owned in kind in kind or if the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the partition, the court may order the auction of

(2) Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the land under Paragraph (1) of this Article is not reached. In light of the area of the land under Paragraph (1) of this Article, even if it is difficult to divide the land under Paragraph (1) in kind or it is not difficult to divide it in kind with household affairs, the value of the land under Paragraph (1) of this Article is likely to be significantly reduced due to division. Therefore, in the case of the land under Paragraph (1) of this Article, it is appropriate

On the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Defendants asserted that the shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the land of this case are already sold to the three-dimensional corporations and the F Area Housing Association, and that the Plaintiff and the Defendants may be liable for damages due to nonperformance if the land of this case is divided, and that the project of the F Area Housing Association may be delayed. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the division of the land of this case of this case of this case

Although it is difficult to grasp the specific situation because the Defendants did not submit any evidence, they are at least the Defendants.