1. The real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be put to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the share ratio as indicated in the following table.

Plaintiff Co., Ltd. 147/750 3,926.47 Defendant 1 C 50/750 approximately 1,335.54 Defendant 2 D 50/750 approximately 1,335.53 Defendant 3 E 50/750 approximately 1,335.53 Defendant 150/750 of 4,006 Defendant 5 G 150/750 4,7506 June 6, 006, Defendant 6 H 3/750.6 Defendant 7 I 150/7504, 006.6 aggregate 120,03333

B. The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on partition was not reached, and there was no agreement on partition prohibition.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading

2. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by the judgment on the cause of the claim shall not be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner, but the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, and it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, use, value of use after the partition, etc. of the co-owner's share.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002). Of co-owners of the instant real estate, Defendant H is merely a 3/750 square meters share (area 80.13 square meters) and thus, there is a concern that the value may be significantly reduced due to a very small area after the in-kind division, and Defendant C, D, F, G, H, and I did not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim on the payment division, and Defendant E does not clearly dispute it. In light of the above, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim.