1.(attached Form 1) The real estate listed in the list shall be sold by auction and the auction cost shall be deducted from the price.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants, in fact, share the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] list (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant housing”) in the proportion of co-ownership shares in [Attachment 2] list, and there is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant housing, which is jointly owned, until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, co-owners of the instant house, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the Plaintiff may claim the division of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

(b) Co-owned property partition according to a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, if it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner, or if the co-owned property cannot be divided in kind, or if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably due to such partition, the court may order an auction of things

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. In this case, the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned in question in light of the nature, location, and size

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, the health stand in this case, and the housing of this case is composed of several co-owners, and all co-owners.