A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) at the ratio of “each of the respective shares listed in the separate sheet of co-ownership.”

B. There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim for partition of co-owned property and method of partition;

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide each of the instant real estate.

B. In light of the aforementioned evidence, the use status and area of each real estate of this case, and the number of co-owners, etc., which can be known by the purport of the entire pleadings, even if the share of the Plaintiff and the Defendants is divided in kind according to their respective co-ownership shares, it is anticipated that the share of each real estate of this case can not be used independently, and the value of

In addition, considering the overall circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, each real estate of this case seems to fall under cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind due to its nature.

Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the common property in the way of distributing the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price of each of the instant real property sold by auction to the public auction, according to the share ratio of co-owners of the Plaintiff

3. In conclusion, the remaining amount after the sale of each of the instant real estate by auction shall be distributed according to the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds.