A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff shared the real estate 7/10, and the Defendants shared the real estate 1/10 shares, respectively.

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

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

B. In full view of the following, the Plaintiff’s method of partition of co-owned property (i.e., division of co-owned property) wants to divide the price through auction, and the Defendants intended to purchase the Plaintiff’s share, but the Plaintiff wants to divide the price through auction, and the Plaintiff did not comply with the Defendants’ demand for purchase of shares, it seems that it would be the most equitable and reasonable way to divide the instant land by auction.

3. The conclusion is that the instant land is divided between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.