A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/6 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the pertinent real estate, which is jointly owned, by the closing date of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owners of the instant real estate, did not reach agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of the instant real estate.

B. In full view of the fact that the co-owners of the real estate in this case’s method of partition of co-owned property has up to six persons, the Defendants only sought a rejection of the Plaintiff’s partition of co-owned property, but did not present the lawsuit of partition of co-owned property, and the real estate in this case is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind as an apartment, it is reasonable to divide the real estate in this case by the method of payment, since it constitutes a case where the real estate in this case

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agree to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds that the instant real estate was sold to auction at an auction, according to their co-ownership ratio.