Busan Jin-gu D. 174m2 is put up for auction and the other money remains after deducting the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns 3/5 shares in the real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Defendant owns 2/5 shares, respectively.

B. Until the closing date of the instant pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree on the method of dividing the instant real estate. There was no separate agreement or special agreement prohibiting the use of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as the co-owner of the pertinent real estate, the Plaintiff may claim against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, the co-owner of the pertinent real estate, the partition of the pertinent real estate.

B. 1) According to the above legal principles, in the case of the division of the article jointly owned in kind, if it is impossible to divide the article jointly owned in kind or if it is likely that the value will be significantly reduced, the auction of the article may be ordered, and the "it shall not be divided in kind" here is not physically strict interpretation. The requirement includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.). In light of the above recognized facts and the overall purport of the arguments in this case, the following circumstances, which can be known in light of the above acknowledged facts and the overall purport of the arguments in this case, i.e., there is no building which has not been closed for a long time on the land in this case, and it is difficult to find an appropriate method of division in kind when considering such situation.