1. The remainder of the real estate listed in the separate sheet after being put to an auction and deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff A is the plaintiff B and the defendant's mother.

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter the above list Nos. 1) is used as the building and its site of the telecom called “this case’s land,” and the real estate listed in Paragraph 2 as “this case’s building,” and “the instant real estate,” respectively.

C. At present, the instant building is the shares of Plaintiff A3/14, Plaintiff B2/14, Defendant 9/14, and the instant land is owned with shares of Plaintiff A3/7, Plaintiff B2/7, and Defendant 2/7. There is no special agreement prohibiting partition of co-owned property regarding the instant real estate between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant real estate, may file a claim for the partition against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

As to the method of partition, it is a matter of principle that the division of the common property by a trial shall be made in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable division according to the share of each co-owner, but in the payment division, the requirement that "it may not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the common property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the common property.

Therefore, the object of division of the common property in this case is a building and site used for a single telecom, and it is difficult for the divided part to have its own utility if it is divided in kind. The real property in this case attempted to sell the real property in this case jointly for a considerable period of time and distribute it according to its share ratio, but it did not result due to the difference between the plaintiffs and the defendant's opinion.