1. The remainder of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the cost of the auction from the proceeds of the auction;

In full view of the purport of the respective entries and arguments in the attached list Nos. 1 through 4 between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant B, the following facts are jointly owned by the Plaintiff, the Appointed Party D, and the Defendants as their respective shares of 1/6, and 1/3, respectively. The real estate in this case is leased and resided by a third party as a site and a single-story house on its ground.

According to the above facts, it is recognized that the real estate of this case is unable to be divided in kind or its value may be reduced remarkably due to division.

In addition, Defendant C wanted to make a partition of co-owned property by means of full-value compensation for Plaintiff and Appointed D and the acquisition of their co-ownership, but did not offer a specific amount of compensation, and would pay the amount of compensation at the end of this year. Considering the above circumstances, the method of selling the instant real property at auction and at an objective and reasonable price, and then dividing the price according to their co-ownership seems to be the most equitable and reasonable method of division.

Therefore, according to the co-ownership ratio, the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the real estate sold to an auction shall be distributed to the plaintiff and the selected parties D, one-third each, and one-third each, respectively.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party in light of all the circumstances.