Each real estate entered in the list shall be put to an auction, and the cost of execution and taxes shall be deducted from the proceeds of sale.
In full view of the facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire arguments, the plaintiff and the defendant share each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") at the share ratio of 5/7, the defendant shares 2/7, and the plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the division of the real estate of this case. Thus, the plaintiff, a co-owner of the real estate of this case, may file a claim for the division against the defendant, the other co-owner, pursuant to Article 269(1)
In light of the following circumstances, the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the method of division, namely, the real estate of this case, as land and its ground buildings, may considerably fall in the value and use value when divided in kind in light of their nature and structure, and the situation and management status of the use and management of the real estate of this case, and the economic situation of the plaintiff and the defendant, the real estate of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind to acquire the shares of other co-owners and to compensate for the price of the shares.
Therefore, it is fair and reasonable to sell the instant real estate by auction, and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the execution costs and taxes and the public imposts from the proceeds to the Plaintiff and the Defendant in proportion to their respective shares. Therefore, it is decided as above regarding the division of the instant real estate. It is so decided as per Disposition.