A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants owned each real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in proportion to each share indicated in the separate sheet.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree not to divide the instant real estate, but did not agree on the method of division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3-2, the 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. Since the method of partition of co-owned property in this case is inappropriate to divide the real estate in kind in light of its nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the partition, etc., or if the real estate is divided in kind in kind, its value may be significantly reduced (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). Thus, it is reasonable to divide the real estate in this case 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 money after deducting the auction cost from the price will be divided in proportion to co-ownership shares among the plaintiff and the defendants.