1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the price, which is put up for an auction the F 187 square meters of the wife population in Gyeonggi-do.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim for partition of the jointly-owned property, the plaintiffs and the defendant shared the F 187 square meters in response to the wife population in Yongsan-do, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter "the real property in this case") at each ratio listed in the separate sheet of co-ownership.

In addition to the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, the real estate of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the real estate in kind in light of its size, the shares of the parties concerned, the use value after the division, etc.

Although the plaintiffs and the defendant had consulted several times on the set date or mediation date, they did not reach an agreement on matters concerning partition of co-owned property, and they do not seem to have a special personal relationship between the parties.

The actual real estate in this case seems to be actually used as the answer or actual status.

Article 57(1) of the Building Act and Article 80 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act shall apply to the site on which a building is located, which can be divided into at least 60 square meters, and in the case of a site without a building, Article 56(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 51(1)5(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

In order to divide land below the partition-restricted area under Article 57 (1) of the Building Act pursuant to the item, permission for development activities shall be obtained.

In this case, there was no permission for development activities for land partitioning less than the size restricted from partition.

The substance of the article jointly owned is, in principle, the method of in-kind division.

However, the real estate in this case is currently used as the current status, and there is no evidence to deem that a specific party uses a specific part, and if the real estate is divided in kind by co-ownership (in particular, in the case of the defendant), the area is less than the above divided area.

In addition, the defendant is the defendant of this case.