1. The amount remaining after deducting the expenses for the auction from the price of each real estate listed in the separate sheet sold at auction;

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 4, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”) may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Plaintiff Appointor C own 1/10 shares, and 1/5 shares in each of the Defendant (Appointed Party) and Defendant Appointor D, E, and F, respectively. The parties did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each of the instant land by the date of closing argument.

Therefore, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) who is the co-owner of each of the lands of this case may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the remaining co-owners, Defendant (Appointed Party) and Defendant Appointed pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act

2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall, in principle, be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be substantially damaged due to such division, the proceeds thereof shall

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act: Provided, That the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" in the payment shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned, and the use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). The land of this case is a total of three parcels, each of which differs in their location, size, and shape, and each of the co-owners of the above lands has a total of six persons. Therefore, it is considerably difficult to seek the method of spot-sale in conformity with the equity of co-owners. In such circumstance, the defendant (appointed party) did not state specific opinions on the method of partition, and each of the land of this case is divided in kind in proportion to the size corresponding to the share ratio of the defendants.