A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants own the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”) as one-six shares, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the division of the instant housing.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant housing. As the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the instant land.

B. In full view of the fact that the instant housing was difficult to divide in kind, and that it is an apartment building for one household, and that Defendant B, C, and E did not raise any objection to the Plaintiff’s assertion of auction division, and the remaining Defendants were in the state of unknown whereabouts, it is difficult or difficult to divide in kind between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. As such, it is reasonable to divide the instant housing into money by means of the method of payment.

3. In conclusion, the housing of this case is put to an auction and the proceeds of the auction are to be distributed in proportion to the shares of the plaintiff and the defendants, but the costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by each party. It is so decided as per Disposition.