1. The plaintiff and the defendant, who submitted the real estate stated in the separate sheet to an auction and deducted the auction cost from the price.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/3 shares of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of share ownership transfer on February 22, 2017 after being awarded a successful bid by the Plaintiff in the compulsory auction procedure conducted with respect to D’s shares, and the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement on partition of the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and there is no explicit stipulation prohibiting partition. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for partition of the instant real estate.

2. Method of partition;

(a) If it is impossible to divide the article jointly owned in kind or if the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably due to a division, the court may order an auction of the article;

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. In principle, division of co-owned property by trial is to be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, in payment division, the requirement that “it cannot be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide a co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, and use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002).

The instant real estate is a sectioned building that forms one household of apartment, which is a multi-family housing, and it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as co-owners.

Therefore, it is judged that it is fair and reasonable to distribute the remaining amount of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and the defendants after deducting the auction cost from the auction price. Thus, it is decided as per Disposition upon accepting the plaintiff's claim.