1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the price, which is sold by auction to the Busan Young-gu U.S. 489m2; and

1. The following facts can be acknowledged based on the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 3 between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, N, andO. The following facts are deemed to have been led to the confession between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the other Defendants pursuant to the main text of Article 150(3) and the main text of Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointer V, and the Defendants are co-ownership of 489 square meters in Busan Young-gu U.S. (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The share of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party V, and the Defendants’ co-ownership is equal to each share ratio indicated in the “share ratio” column in the attached Table of co-ownership.

The deceased on November 4, 2014, and succeeded to the 16/1248 shares of the instant real estate, which is the inherited property of Defendant 18 R and his wife, and Defendant 19 S and 20 T, each of their children, inherited shares of 16/1248 shares of the instant real estate, which is the inherited property of the deceased W. The Defendants do not seem to have any circumstance that there was an agreement on the division of inherited property different from the inherited shares of the aforementioned Defendants. As such, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 18R shares of 48/8736, Defendant 19 S and Defendant 20 T according to the inherited shares as indicated in the attached Form “the co-ownership share ratio” column as indicated in the attached Form.

C. Until the closing date of the instant argument, there was no agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed V, and the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party V, and the Defendants shared the instant real estate. Since no agreement was reached between the said parties on the method of partition of the said real estate, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of the instant real estate based on his/her co-ownership right.

(b) Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property may be made with reasonable partition according to shares of co-owners;