1. Attached 1. The real estate listed in the list is put to an auction for money remaining after deducting the expenses of auction from the proceeds of sale;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Attached 1. The real estate listed in the List (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants at the share ratio listed in the List No. 2.

B. There was no division agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the instant real estate, and there was no division prohibition agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant C: Each of the items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the whole purport of the pleading as to the remaining Defendants: Confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by an erroneous judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of co-owner's share.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the method of partition of the co-owned property, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of partition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of partition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.