2. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be put up for auction.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant is unlawful because it has no standing to sue.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the intervenor by defendant

A. The facts underlying facts and the Intervenor shared each of the instant real estate at the ratio of 1/2 shares, and the fact that the agreement on the division method of the instant real estate, which is public property, was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor by the closing date of pleadings in the instant case, is not in dispute between the parties.

B. 1) The plaintiff and the defendant number intervenor co-ownership of each of the properties in this case, and the parties did not reach agreement on the method of partition of each of the properties in this case. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to co-owned share against the defendant number intervenor. 2) The method of partition of co-owned property in accordance with the trial on the method of partition of co-owned property should be based on 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 in kind or it is possible in kind, if the price is likely to decrease substantially, the auction of the co-owned property should be ordered to divide the co-owned property in kind. However, the requirement that "the co-owned property cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict. It includes the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the partition.

. ....