1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendants, as indicated in the separate sheet.

B. The Plaintiffs demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, but no agreement was reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on the method of division until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs and the defendants sharing the real estate of this case did not reach agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the plaintiffs, co-owners, can file a claim against the defendants, other co-owners, for the partition of the real estate of this case.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct partition in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). We examine the following: (a) it appears difficult for the co-ownership right holder to draw up a reasonable division plan to satisfy all of the multiple copies; and (b) the Defendants did not appear on the date for pleading of this case, and did not submit a written reply, etc.