A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants as their respective shares listed in the separate sheet of co-ownership.

B. The Plaintiff proposed the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, but did not reach an agreement on the method of division.

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

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to claim partition of co-owned property as to the instant real estate against the Defendants based on his co-ownership.

B. As a matter of principle, the partition of co-owned property shall be made by the method of in-kind partition as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible or possible in-kind form, if the price is likely to decrease substantially, the auction of the co-owner's property shall be ordered, and the price shall be divided in-kind. In payment division, the requirement does not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in-kind in light of the nature, location, area, and use of the co-owned property, and the use value after the division. 2) The real estate in this case includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in-kind in-kind in light of the nature of the co-owned property, location, and use value after the division, etc.

The plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the price according to the auction, and the defendant B consented thereto, and the other defendants do not present any opinion.

In full view of the above points, the real estate of this case is not a spot-sale but a method of payment according to an auction.