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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant own 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on subdivision of each of the instant real estate, and there is no agreement on subdivision prohibition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), entry of Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, may request the Defendant, who is another co-owner, to divide each real estate of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by an erroneous judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of co-owner's share.

In light of the fact that each of the instant real estate is a site and a building on the ground thereof, which is physically impossible to divide it according to its equity ratio, the instant real estate cannot be divided in kind, and it is a substantial way to divide the proceeds from the auction into an auction. In light of the fact that each of the instant real estate is a site and a building on the ground thereof, it is not possible to divide it in kind, and it is not possible to divide the proceeds from the sale into an auction.

3. If so, the conclusion is to divide each of the real estate of this case as described in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition.