1. Each real estate listed in the attached Table 1 “Real Estate List” shall be put to an auction and the auction cost shall be deducted from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties, Defendant B, and Defendant C both are children of the network E and Defendant D as siblings.

B. Each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 “Real Estate List” (P. 1, 3, and 4) was owned by E. As E died on January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff, the designated parties, and the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer due to inheritance, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, May 2, 2016 (hereinafter “attached shares”).

C. The Plaintiff, the designated parties, and the Defendants completed the registration of ownership preservation on May 2, 2016, as shown in the attached Table 1’s “Real Estate List” (No. 2).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Judgment on the claim for partition of co-owned property

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, each land and building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”) are jointly owned by the Plaintiff, the designated parties, and the Defendants. As long as an agreement on the method of partition has not been reached, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the designated parties may file a claim against the Defendants for the division of the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Division of an article jointly owned by a method of partition may be selected at will if there is an agreement between co-owners. However, if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to a lack of agreement, it is in principle divided in kind. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is divided in kind, the value of the article may be reduced remarkably, an auction of the article may be ordered to be paid in installments.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428, Mar. 26, 2015). Here, the requirement that a subdivision in kind is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation.