1. The Plaintiff: (a) put the H 487.9m2 into an auction and deducts the auction cost from the price.

1. According to the purport of Gap's written evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiffs and the defendants shared shares as stated in the Disposition, as to H. 487.9 square meters (hereinafter "the site in this case"). By the date of closing argument in this case, consultation on the method of dividing the site in this case between the plaintiffs and the defendants was not reached.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant land, can file a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are the remaining co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act

2. According to the overall purport of evidence No. 2-1 to No. 8 as to the partition of co-owned property, it can be acknowledged that there exists a multi-household house of the fourth floor size on the site of this case, and in the case of the division of co-owned property in kind, in light of the location and size of the site of this case, utilization status, use value after the partition, use value of the land of this case, legal limit provisions, co-owners' relations, and co-ownership status, etc., the land of this case may not be divided in kind or the value of the land of this case may be significantly decreased due to the division.

Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the sale price by the auction to the plaintiffs and the defendants in the way of distributing the shares.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.