A. The Plaintiff owns 1/2 shares in relation to the 1/2 share of the Plaintiff, and 1/2 shares in each of the Defendants, with respect to the 1/2 share of the 169 square meters wide (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Grounds for Recognition: entry of evidence No. 1 and purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Considering the current status of the instant real estate as to the method of partition of co-owned property, the intent of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the establishment of a right to collateral security on the instant real estate, the method of selling the instant real estate at auction and then dividing the price according to the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants is fair and reasonable.

3. In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the real estate of this case was sold at auction and the remaining money after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds will be divided in accordance with their respective shares.