1. The amount remaining after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of the auction by selling each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1;

Each real estate listed in the attached list 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to attached Form 2.

In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it cannot be divided in kind in kind is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value after the partition

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002, etc.). In light of the nature of the instant real estate, the instant real estate is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the intention of the parties; and (b) the intention of Article 22 of the Farmland Act does not include a subdivision below 2,00 square meters; and (c) the use value after the division of the status of the use thereof

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the sale of the instant real estate by auction and then the distribution of the price according to the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants is the most equitable and reasonable method of division.

However, the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party, and it is so decided as per Disposition.