1. The money in which the auction cost has been deducted from the proceeds by adding the real estate recorded in the attached list to the auction.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the following can be acknowledged: (a) the Plaintiff (Appointed Party); (b) the designated person; and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”); and (c) the co-owners did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant real estate as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case; (d) further, it is difficult to find an appropriate method of partition in kind in light of various circumstances, such as the shape, land category, sex, and share ratio of co-owners as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case; and (e) the restriction on the minimum size of partition under the ordinance of the local government where the pertinent real estate is located; and (e) it is difficult for co-owners to find an adequate method of partition in part or in whole; and (e) it can be deemed the best method of dividing the pertinent real estate by selling it at auction and

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.