A. On November 10, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired 6241/1648 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the auction procedure. Defendant B owns 396/168 of the instant real estate and Defendant C owns 6248/16 of the instant real estate.

B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the land of this case until the date of closing the argument of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged above, since the agreement on the method of partition between the plaintiff and the defendants, who are co-owners of the land of this case, was not constituted, the plaintiff is entitled to file a partition claim against the defendants as co-owners of the land of this case.

3. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property can be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the price can be reduced remarkably, and the auction of the goods can be ordered only when the value thereof is likely to decrease substantially. Thus, barring such circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind at the share of each co-owner, and the method of division shall be reasonable division according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court, rather than by the method requested by the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219, Sept. 9, 197). In light of the above legal principles, the case is examined as to this case.