1. The separate list shall be attached to the auction sale of Pyeongtaek-si F 383 square meters and the remainder after deducting the auction expenses from the price.

1. According to the purport of Gap's claim for partition of co-owned property, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants shared the land of Pyeongtaek-si F. 383 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case") according to their respective shares in the attached list, and it is recognized that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants on the method of partition.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a co-owner of the instant land, may claim a partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case by the method of partition of the co-owned property, since the land of this case is unable to divide in kind or its value might be reduced remarkably due to the spot partition.

① If the instant land area is merely 383 square meters and thus divided in kind according to the ratio of shares, it seems impossible to construct a building on the ground because the divided area is too small.

② If the Plaintiff and Defendant C’s shares are set by each right to collateral security, so it would be complicated to compensate for the amount of depreciation arising therefrom, as the right to collateral security continues to exist according to the previous share ratio.

③ The Plaintiff sought a preliminary payment in advance, and Defendant B and Pyeongtaek-si present at the date of pleading stated that they do not raise any objection thereto.