1. The land listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule shall be put to an auction and the proceeds thereof shall be deducted from the auction cost.

1. Basic facts

A. As to each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff owns 70/595, 481/595 for Defendant B, 35/595 for Defendant C, and 9/595 for Defendant D.

B. As to the land listed in attached list No. 3, the Plaintiff owned co-ownership shares of 13,230/161,30, Defendant B owned 139,784/161,330, Defendant C owned 6,615/161,30, Defendant D owned co-ownership shares of 1,701/161,330.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant lands" in attached Forms 1 through 3).

Until the date of closing argument of this case, consultation on the method of dividing each land of this case has not been formed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the claim for partition of co-owned property

A. According to the above recognition facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each of the lands of this case, may file a partition claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. According to a trial on partition of co-owned property, if the co-owned property is divided in kind, in principle, or if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced, an auction of the co-owned property may be ordered. Here, the requirement includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the co-owned property, and where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, the situation of its use, and the use value after the division. Further, the requirement includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind, even if it is a co-owner, if the value of the portion to be owned by the sole owner might be significantly reduced compared to the share value of the property before the division (see Supreme Court Decision 193Da1444, Jan. 1, 1993).