1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The plaintiffs and the defendants shared shares of the plaintiff A, B, C, and defendant F, shares of the plaintiff D3/35, shares of the plaintiff D3/35, and shares of the plaintiff E and the defendant G 2/35, respectively. The fact that the agreement on the method of dividing the real estate of this case was not reached between the plaintiffs and the defendants by the closing date of arguments in this court is not in dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the statement of Gap evidence 1.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, as long as the agreement on the method of dividing the real estate of this case was not reached, the plaintiff may request the court to divide the real estate of this case.

(Article 269, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act).3. Furthermore, the method of division shall be deemed to be the method of division.

The partition of co-owned property may be made in installments by ordering the auction of the co-owned property when the value of the co-owned property is likely to be reduced remarkably (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act), and the case where it is impossible to divide in kind shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, use value, etc. of the co-owned property in light of the nature, location, and use value after the division.

Therefore, since the real estate in this case is an apartment bond and it is difficult to divide it in kind due to its nature, it is reasonable to use the auction proceeds to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction costs from the auction proceeds to the plaintiff and the defendants according to their respective shares.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that it is appropriate to sell the instant real estate and divide the sales price in proportion to their shares in inheritance because they are likely to cause damage to all co-owners because they sold the instant real estate at a low price when the auction is divided. Therefore, the Defendants do not seem to have made specific efforts to sell the instant real estate even until the conclusion of the pleadings, and the instant real estate is divided by auction.