1. The plaintiff shall be placed at an auction of 885m2 in the city of public housing and the amount of money from which the auction cost was deducted from the proceeds of sale.

According to the purport of each entry and pleading in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant shared one-half shares of each of the 1/2 shares of the plaintiff and the defendant in official city, and that there was no partition agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the real estate of this case and there was no partition agreement.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendant, who is another co-owner, to divide the said real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of arguments, including the fact that the Defendant was served with the instant complaint claiming the auction division and did not appear on the date of pleading, the instant real estate constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind with the real estate of this case.

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 proceeds from the sale by selling the real estate to the auction to the plaintiff and the defendant.

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