1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

In Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu E 269 square meters, they shall be put up for auction and at the price.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant land, Plaintiff A acquired shares from I on June 4, 2012 from 102.4/269; Plaintiff B and C from J on July 30, 2004 each 48.475/269 shares; and Defendant purchased shares from F on June 18, 2002 from 69.65/269 shares.

Accordingly, the land of this case is currently owned by Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, 48.475/269 shares, and Defendant 69.65/269 shares.

B. With respect to the portion of “A” on the instant land, which connects each point of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and 1 of the attached appraisal drawings, among the land in this case, the building purchased by the Plaintiff I on June 4, 2012 (hereinafter “the building in this case”) and the building purchased by the Plaintiff B and C from J on July 30, 2004 (hereinafter “the building in this case”) which connects each point of the 11, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the attached drawings in sequence, the building purchased by the Defendant from G on March 202 (hereinafter “the building in this case”) is the building “B” and the building purchased by the Defendant from G on March 20, 202 (hereinafter “the building in this case”).

C. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant did not agree on the method of partition of the pertinent land. D.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs want to divide the common properties, such as the entries in the claim, on the land of this case, while the defendant wants to divide the price through auction.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser H of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above 1, the plaintiffs and the defendant shared the land of this case, and there was no agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the method of partition of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a claim against the defendant for partition of the land of this case based on their co-ownership.