1. The remainder of H miscellaneous land 3064 square meters which is put to an auction and the auction cost is deducted from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article (hereinafter referred to as the real estate of this case) is jointly owned by the plaintiff, the designated parties B, and the remaining Defendants. The share ratio is as set out in Paragraph 1 of this Article.

B. The Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to divide the instant real estate into the Defendant Appointed and the remaining Defendants, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant Appointed and the designated parties, and the remaining Defendants on the division method by the date of the closing of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the right to partition of co-owned property, the plaintiff, the designated parties, and the designated parties sharing the real property of this case and the remaining Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the plaintiff, a co-owner of the real property of this case, can file a claim against the defendants, who are other co-owners.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by the person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by the person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if the person is a co-owner.

The results of the on-site inspection by this Court are as follows: there is no dispute between the parties, or entry of Gap evidence 2 through 5, Eul evidence 1, and this Court.