1. The amount of real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be attached;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants at each ratio listed in the separate sheet of shares.

B. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, but no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of division until the date of the closing of the instant argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff sharing the instant real estate and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant real estate.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). We examine the following: (a) it appears difficult for the co-ownership right holder to draw up a reasonable division plan to satisfy all of the multiple copies; (b) there is any Defendants who did not appear on the date for pleading of this case; and (c) the Defendants did not submit a written reply, etc.; and (d) other real estate of this case.