The part concerning the defendants in the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows. A.

Land listed in the attached Table 1 shall be put up for auction.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners who own the relevant shares indicated in the attached Table 2 of each of the land listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid on November 2, 2018.

B. From 1963 to 1987, the Defendants owned each of the buildings listed in attached Table 3 (other than Defendant C’s ownership building) on the ground of the instant land until now.

C. Until the closing date of the instant argument, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land, and there was no special agreement prohibiting the division of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact-finding results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the partition of co-owned property

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim a partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, who are the remaining co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the form of ownership of the land of this case is in co-ownership of sectional ownership.

According to Gap evidence No. 2, 82/326 shares of the land of this case acquired by the plaintiff at the auction procedure of the land of this case can be acknowledged as the true co-ownership shares, not the shares representing the sectional co-ownership relation. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff sold the above shares as the shares representing the sectional co-ownership relation in the auction procedure of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the entire land of this case in the auction procedure of this case

Even if the Plaintiff had a sectionally owned co-ownership relation with the land of this case prior to the successful bid of 82/326 shares out of the land of this case.