A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant D, and Defendant E share 2/11 shares, and Defendant C share 3/11 shares, respectively.

B. As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Plaintiff did not hold a divided consultation with the Defendants on each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and did not agree with the parties on the prohibition of division.

2. Determination

A. If the agreement on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may request the court to divide it (Article 269(1) of the Civil Act), and considering the circumstances revealed in the records, in the case of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, it is deemed that it is difficult to divide it in kind as prescribed by Article 269(2) of the Civil Act or the value thereof is considerably reduced due to the division, and therefore, the method of division is reasonable.

(b) Accordingly, each real estate listed in the separate sheet is sold to the auction to the Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant D, and Defendant E, in proportion to the respective shares of 2/11 and 3/11 shares, after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale.

3. It is so decided as to divide each real estate listed in the separate sheet as ordered.