1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the auction cost from each price.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet as co-ownership shares as to each real estate.

B. There was no consultation on division between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding each of the instant real estate, and in particular, in the case of Defendant B and C, the consultation on division was not attempted because it did not know the domicile and contact address during that period.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, 3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Co-owners of the real estate in which the right to partition of co-owned property has arisen may file a claim for partition of co-owned property with the court if the agreement on the method of partition has not been reached (Article 268(1) main text and Article 269 of the Civil Act). As seen above, as the co-owners of each of the real estate of this case and the Defendants did not reach agreement on the partition during that period, the plaintiff may file a claim for partition with the court against the Defendants, who are other co

B. In principle, the method of partition as to the partition of co-owned property according to the relevant legal principles is to be made in kind, as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, or if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if it is possible to divide in kind, if the value might be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind.

The requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" in the price division is not physically strict, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization status, and the use value after the division, etc. of the common property.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). The Sheshes the concrete judgment.