1. The plaintiff shall submit the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff and Defendant E share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to the shares of 3/12, Defendant B, C, and D, respectively, and it can be recognized that there was no agreement on the partition of the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. As such, the Plaintiff, co-owner of the instant land, as co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of the instant land, which is co-owner of the other co-owner, pursuant to Article 269(1)

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

(a) In the case of dividing the article jointly owned by a trial, in principle, by dividing it in kind, or by dividing it in kind or by dividing it in kind, if the value thereof is apprehended to be significantly reduced, the auction of the article jointly owned may be ordered, and the price may be paid in installments;

Here, the requirement includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the property in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of use after the division, etc.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297 Decided December 10, 2015). B.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleading, the following circumstances, namely, the spot-type division, etc. sought by defendant D, which seriously compromises the utility value of other co-owners of the land of this case, and the defendant C did not raise an objection despite being served with the complaint of this case seeking the auction division, the defendant E consented to the auction division, the service method is difficult for the defendant Eul to consult on the division by service by public notice, and the area, location, and current use of the land of this case, the function and value of the land after the division in the spot-type division.