1. The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The facts of recognition are co-owners of the Plaintiff (2/11 shares) and the Defendants (a total of 9/11 shares) with F.926 square meters, 52.74 square meters and 34.3 square meters and 34.3 square meters, G forest 2,083 square meters and 2,083 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

(Plaintiff acquired H’s shares as of January 15, 2015 in the procedure of compulsory auction for each of the above real estates (based on recognition)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each of the instant real estate. Since each of the instant real estate is unable to be divided in kind in kind, or the value of each real estate is likely to be significantly reduced due to division, the auction division is sought.

B. Since each of the instant real estate asserted by the Defendants can be divided in kind, it is unreasonable to order an auction division.

3. In the case of a partition of co-owned property, the principle of partition in kind has been applied to the auction division where it is substantially difficult to do so (Article 269 of the Civil Code). In the case of a partition of co-owned property, co-owners may request the court to divide the property in kind if agreement on the method of partition has not been reached (Article 269 of the Civil Code).

The phrase "where the value of the property is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind" is that the value of the property is to be owned independently by the co-owner, even if the co-owner is a person, the value of the property before the division is divided.