1. The land listed in [Attachment I] Nos. 1 and 2 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 [Attachment 1] List 1 and 2, the Plaintiff owns co-ownership shares of 481/595, Defendant B’s 70/595, Defendant C’s 35/595, and Defendant E’s 9/595.

B. As to the land listed in [Attachment 1 List 3], the Plaintiff owns co-ownership shares of 481/595, 105/595 for Defendant D, and 9/595 for Defendant E.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands” in attached Tables 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. A method of partition of co-owned property can be divided in kind in a case of dividing the co-owned property through a trial, in principle, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is difficult to divide it in kind in kind or if the value thereof might 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, as well as cases 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, the use after the division, and the use value after the division. Further, the requirement includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind even if it is a co-owner, if the value of the property to be owned by the co-owner might be significantly reduced compared with the share value before the division (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 193; 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 1993).