A. According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, the following facts are recognized:

1) The plaintiff and the defendants are "real estate of this case" in the order of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case") and "real estate of this case" in total.

(2) As of the closing date of the instant pleadings, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant real estate as of the date of the conclusion of the pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. Division of the jointly-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the jointly-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall, in principle, divide it in kind. It is possible to order the auction of the goods only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when the value is considerably reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind in accordance with the share ratio of co-owners.

In addition, the method of division is not a way requested by the parties, but a reasonable division is made according to the share ratio of co-owners according to the circumstances of the co-ownership relation or the objects, at the discretion of the court, according to the share ratio of the co-owners. If the objects are divided in kind, it is divided in kind within the share limit of the co-owner.