A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners on the register of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet indicating the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and co-ownership is one-third of each real estate.

B. Although the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree not to divide the instant real estate, they did not reach an agreement regarding the method of division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, since the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, and the Defendants did not reach agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff may file a judicial claim against the Defendants for partition pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, since the real estate in this case is recognized as housing and its site, it is inappropriate to divide the real estate in kind in light of its nature, location, size, utilization status, use value after the division, etc., or if it is divided in kind, it is likely that the value will be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate by means of a method of payment by auction under Article 269(2) of the Civil Act.

3. In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by the court below that the real estate of this case was put to an auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be divided in accordance with the ratio of 1/3 as co-ownership share of the plaintiff and the defendants.