1. The defendant who puts the F 285m2 to an auction and deducts the auction cost from the price.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant C/24 shares, the defendant A, B, and D, each of whom was owned by the defendant C/24 shares, the plaintiff and the defendant E/24 shares, and the fact that the agreement on the method of dividing the land of this case was not reached between the plaintiff and the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff, a co-owner, can file a judicial claim for the division of the land of this case, which is co-owned property.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the method of partition, the following facts are revealed: (a) the provisional registration of the right to claim for share transfer among the land of this case was completed in G with respect to the Plaintiff’s share; and (b) the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage consisting of the maximum debt amount 20,000,000; and (c) considering that the land to be owned by the sole owner after the split-off will continue to exist according to its share ratio, the land of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the land in kind.

Therefore, the land of this case is ordered to sell the land at auction and distribute the price in accordance with the ratio of shares, and it is so decided as per Disposition.