1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A and the Appointed E (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) share 1/8 each, and the Defendants share 1/4 each.

B. The Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendants did not agree on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Co-owners of the real property in the right to partition of co-owned property may claim partition of co-owned property against other co-owners at any time (Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, there is no agreement on the method of partition of the real property in the instant case, which is jointly owned by the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendants. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff, etc., who is co-owners of the instant

B. Division method (1) Division of an article jointly owned may be selected at will, if there is an agreement between co-owners. However, if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to a lack of agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is made in kind, the value of the article may be reduced remarkably, the court may order an auction of the article, only when the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428, Mar. 26, 2015). Here, the requirement that a “undivided in kind” cannot be physically construed, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of use after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property in light of the nature, location, and area of the jointly-owned property and the use value after

It is the case that "if the value is to be reduced remarkably if it is divided in kind, the value may be reduced remarkably," even if the co-owner's person is divided in kind.