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

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) is jointly owned by the remaining Defendants except Defendant E, F, and G and the Plaintiff as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) is jointly owned by the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant K, and the Plaintiff, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the land and the building of this case until the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land and building, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in-kind or possible in-kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to the auction of the co-owned property, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property and by dividing the price. However, in the price division, the requirement that "it may not be divided in-kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in-kind division in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, use value after the

I would like to say.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., the fact that: (a) the instant case’s health room, the evidence and the entire purport of oral argument are comprehensively considered; (b) it appears difficult to draw a spot subdivision with the consent of all the parties; and (c) the instant real estate is one parcel of land and its own land.