1. The amount remaining after the amount of the auction cost is deducted from the proceeds of the auction by selling D 989 square meters in Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si.

1. Basic facts

A. While the Plaintiffs shared Plaintiff A 3,96/6,295 shares, Plaintiff B 2,299/6, and 299/6,295 shares, the Plaintiffs newly constructed a general steel structure and other third-story buildings on the above land (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed registration of initial ownership on October 17, 2003, with respect to the above building owned by 1/2 shares.

B. The Defendant, the female students of Plaintiff A, asserted that the Plaintiffs agreed to transfer the shares in the instant land, etc., and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs, including the transfer of ownership seeking partial transfer of the shares in the instant land, etc., with the Goyang-gu District Court 2015Kahap74541. The said court rendered a judgment on July 22, 2016 ordering the Plaintiff to file an order for the Defendant to complete the transfer of ownership for the shares in the instant land 2,352/6,295. Although the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealedd as Seoul High Court 2016Na205231, the appeal was entirely dismissed on October 19, 2017, the final judgment became final and conclusive by the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s final appeal by the Plaintiff A (Supreme Court 2017Da277801).

Accordingly, the Defendant, on March 16, 2018, filed a transfer registration of ownership based on a final and conclusive judgment from Plaintiff A on July 22, 2016, with respect to share 2,352/6,295 of the instant land, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant shared the instant land by Plaintiff A’s share 1,64/6,295 shares, Plaintiff B’s share 2,299/6,295 shares, and Defendant 2,352/6,295 shares.

C. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the existence of the right to partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant land, against the Defendant pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.