As of the closing date of the instant case, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

Defendants C, E, F, G, H, and I 17 of the co-owners’ co-ownership 17 each of the following facts: Defendant C, E, F, G, H, and I 23/17 of the co-owners’ co-ownership 17 each of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) evidence Nos. 1-3, 4, and 5; and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Determination

A. Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If a consultation on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement on the method of partition, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. If it is impossible to divide the property in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the property (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, co-owners, as co-owners, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269 of

B. The partition of co-owned property based on the judgment of one legal principle as to the partition of co-owned property is in principle, it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind, or it is possible in form

Even if the price of the article jointly owned is likely to be significantly reduced due to such act, the sale of the article jointly owned shall be ordered in accordance with Article 269(2) of the Civil Code and the price shall be divided by the so-called payment method. The price of the article substantially reduced due to the in-kind division shall be not only if the exchange value of the article jointly owned is substantially reduced due to the in-kind division, but also if the owner fails to fairly divide the article, it shall be owned by the owner by the in-kind division.