A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared the Plaintiff A3/23 shares, the Plaintiff B, and C, and 2/23 shares, respectively.

B. The agreement on the division of the instant real estate, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, was not reached.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In the case of dividing the co-owned property through a trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the auction of the property can be ordered if the value might be significantly reduced. The requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property, and it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind, and "the value of the property might be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind" includes cases where the co-owner's share might be significantly reduced compared to the share value before the division (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). In light of the evidence and the purport of each of the co-owner's share in kind, the proportion of the co-owner's share in kind and the purpose of each of the above cases can be considered as evidence and the present situation.