A. There is no dispute between the parties, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant real estate by the date of closing the argument in this case.

2. Determination

A. In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be divided in kind as far as one in which a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that division in kind may not be physically strictly interpreted, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, the situation of its use, the use value after the partition, etc.

In addition, the phrase "if the property is to be divided in kind, if the value is likely to be reduced remarkably," includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the part to be owned independently due to the division in kind is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the value of the share before the division.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).

Considering that the intent of the parties to the instant case does not coincide with respect to the division in kind or value compensation in consideration of the nature of the instant real estate, the instant real estate is deemed difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind. The sale of the instant real estate by auction and the distribution of the price according to the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants after the sale of the instant real estate is the most impartial and reasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the sale of the instant real estate to an auction shall be deducted from the proceeds of the auction.