A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared their share in 3/11 and 2/11 each.

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

[Grounds for Recognition] deemed confession (Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination

A. Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If a consultation as to the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the property (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, co-owners, as co-owners, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269 of the Civil Act

B. In full view of the share ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as to the method of partition of co-owned property, the real estate of this case is a multi-family housing, the fact that it is impossible to divide it in kind as a multi-family housing, and the fact that the Defendants do not dispute the payment in installments through an auction, etc., the real estate of this case shall be divided as stated in paragraph (1) of this

3. In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by the court below that the real estate of this case was sold at auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be divided into the plaintiff and the defendants in proportion to their co-ownership share.