1. money which shall be referred to the attached list to auction and deduct the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale; and

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in their respective shares of shares of 1/4, and up to now, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have any divided agreement on the instant real estate and did not have any divided agreement.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim the division of the said real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, including the fact that the Defendants did not respond to the Plaintiff’s request for partition, and that the instant complaint claiming the auction division was not present on the date of pleading, and that the real estate in this case appears to have been used when divided in light of its area as farmland, etc., the real estate in this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the real estate in kind.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 269 (2) of the Civil Code, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the sale price by selling the real estate at an auction to the original defendant's share.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by dividing the instant real estate through an auction.