1. The defendant shall sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the proceeds.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the real estate of this case”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants at the ratio of their shares as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, and it can be acknowledged that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the real estate of this case by the closing date of pleadings of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff as the co-owner of each of the real estate of this case may claim for the division of the jointly owned property against the Defendants,

2. In principle, the common property shall be divided by the method of partition in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, but it shall be impossible to divide it in kind or possible to divide it in kind;

Even if the price of each real estate of this case is likely to be significantly reduced, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the jointly owned property to divide the price. The requirement is not physically strict interpretation, and it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the price in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the jointly owned property (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002, etc.). In this case, each of the real estate of this case, among the real estate of this case, is difficult or inappropriate to divide the price by the owner's share according to the restriction on the division of the site, and the method of division is determined by the auction as a whole.

3. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment is that of each of the instant real estate.