1. The remaining money after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1;

1. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in proportion to co-ownership shares in the attached sheet.

There was no agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the method of dividing the real estate of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 6 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. 1) The requirement that a partition of co-owned property can be made in kind or in kind if the value of the co-owned property is likely to be significantly reduced, in case of dividing it in kind through a trial, the auction of the property can be ordered, and the "undivided in kind" can not be physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, situation of use, and use value after the partition, etc. of the co-owner's property, and "where the value of the property might be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind" includes cases where, even if the co-owner's property is divided in kind, it is difficult or difficult to reduce the value of the property to be owned independently by the division in kind than the share value before the division (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009).