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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and their share ratios are 22/30 and 1/30, respectively.

B. There was no division agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the instant real estate, and there was no division prohibition agreement.

[Ground for recognition] Defendant D: The statement of No. 1 and the remainder of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the defendants: The confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by an erroneous judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of co-owner's share.

(2) As to the real estate of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). Considering the shape of the real estate of this case, considering the following: (a) health class; (b) the real estate of this case as an aggregate building is physically impossible to divide it according to its equity ratio; and (c) the Defendant B expressed his opinion to want the auction division; and (d) the remaining Defendants except Defendant B and D did not express any special opinion on the method of partition, the real estate of this case remains effective.