1. The real estate listed in the annex 1 list shall be sold by auction and the proceeds thereof shall be deducted from the auction cost.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants share the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at each co-ownership ratio listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. There has not been an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including, if any, a satisfy), the purport of the pleading before oral argument

2. Determination

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the plaintiffs, co-owners of the apartment of this case, and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the plaintiffs can file a claim for the partition of co-owned property against the defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Code.

(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, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, this case’s real estate is a health unit and this case’s real estate.