1. The remainder of the money obtained by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deducting the auction cost from the proceeds;

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1, No. 3, and No. 1, as a result of the claim for partition of the jointly-owned property, the facts that the plaintiffs and the defendant shared real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant house”) in the same proportion as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 3, and No. 1, the above parties did not reach an agreement on partition of the jointly-owned property relating to

Therefore, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiffs as co-owners of the instant house may request the Defendant to divide the jointly owned property against the remaining co-owners.

2. In full view of the circumstances that can be recognized by the above evidence by the method of dividing the jointly-owned property, the instant house is difficult to divide into one unit of an aggregate building, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s failure to present a detailed method of partition, and the sale time and amount cannot be specified in the case of dividing the instant house after selling the instant house to a third party. Considering the above circumstances, it is difficult or inappropriate to ensure the fair division among co-owners while maintaining the utility value of the instant house (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). Considering the above circumstances, it is the most equitable and rational method to sell the instant house to the auction and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the price to the co-owners according to the share sharing ratio.

3. Conclusion, the housing of this case shall be put to an auction and the price shall be paid in installments as ordered by the court.