A. Co-owners of real estate may at any time demand a partition of the article jointly owned by other co-owners, and in a case where the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to a lack of agreement on the partition of the article jointly owned, the court shall in principle divide it in kind. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is made in kind, the court may order the auction of the article only when the value of the article might be reduced remarkably.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428 Decided March 26, 2015, etc.). B.

With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendants owned 1/3 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the fact that it is practically impossible to divide the instant real estate into investment in kind due to the owner of the instant real estate and another building is constructed on the land adjacent thereto, is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, it is reasonable to divide the remaining amount of the instant real estate, which was referred to an auction, after deducting the auction cost, according

The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified.