1. The amount remaining after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the auction by selling the apartment in the attached list;

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the apartment as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, respectively, in proportion to the shares of 1/20, and the Defendants jointly owned by the respective shares of 1/5, and it can be acknowledged that the agreement on the division of the instant apartment has not been reached between the Plaintiff (the captain) and the designated parties and the Defendants. As such, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, who are co-owners of the instant apartment, may file a claim for the division against the other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. The method of partition of co-owned property in this case is an apartment building, which is an aggregate building, and it is difficult to divide as long as there is no agreement between the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties, and considering the nature of the apartment in this case and the use value after the division, it is reasonable to deem that the apartment in this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind the apartment in this case. Thus, the method of selling the apartment in this case after selling it to auction and then dividing the price according to the respective shares of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties and the Defendants is an equitable and reasonable

3. The conclusion is that the apartment of this case shall be put to an auction and the payment shall be ordered. It is so decided as per Disposition.