1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

It shall be put up for auction the area of 1818.5 square meters in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

1. Comprehensively taking into account the purport of evidence No. 1 as to the establishment of the right to claim partition of co-owned property, 2/11 shares out of the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, 5/11 shares by the Plaintiff’s Korea Asset Trust, 2/11 shares by the Defendant KB Real Estate Trust, and 1/11 shares by the Defendant KB, and 1/11 shares by the Defendant C (the Plaintiff and Defendant A owned 1/11 shares out of the land of this case at the time of the instant lawsuit, but the Plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor owned 1/11 shares of each of the instant land of this case from the Plaintiff on May 26, 2015, and August 17, 2015, respectively, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor became the owner of 2/11 shares transferred from the Defendant on each of the instant land of this case, and consultation on the method of partition of the land of this case between the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the Defendants is acknowledged, respectively.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and Defendants oppose the division in kind, and according to the evidence No. 8, it is deemed practically impossible to divide the land of this case in kind according to the co-owner’s share. Thus, it is reasonable to divide the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the sale price as stated in the order of this case’s land by auction as stated in the order of this case’s land to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the Defendant’s remaining Defendants except for the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the Defendant.

B. As to the determination of the claim for partition in kind based on full value compensation, the Defendant Korea Asset Trust, and the K non-real estate trust will not enjoy future development values in the event of the occurrence of co-ownership relationship with respect to the land of this case, the co-ownership ratio of the Plaintiff’s successor’s co-ownership by the auction, and the said Defendants would not enjoy future development values. In light of the wishes of the remaining co-owners except the Plaintiff’s successor with respect to the method of partition