1. The real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list is attached to the auction and the auction cost is deducted from the proceeds of the auction;

In fact, the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list of real estate (hereinafter “instant land”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in their respective shares in the attached Table 2 list.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the above fact-finding of the claim for partition of co-ownership, the plaintiff may claim for partition of the co-owned property against the defendants, who are other co-owners of the land of this case.

In the event of dividing the jointly-owned property through a trial, in principle, it is possible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind as long as it can be reasonably divided according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide the jointly-owned property in kind or if the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced, the auction of the property may be ordered. Here, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the jointly-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and the use value after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002; 2009Da40219, Sep. 10, 2009; 2009; 19,4026, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the following facts and evidence presented by the Plaintiff present at the auction meeting and present the remainder of the land as seen above.