1. The sales price shall be the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the sales price, which shall be sold to the public auction with the wife population C in Gyeonggi-do.

1. Claim for partition of co-owned property

A. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 4-1’s statement, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff shared 1187/1498 shares, the defendant shared 311/1498 shares, and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the real estate of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant up to the closing date of the pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may request the court to divide the instant real estate in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

(a) If an agreement on the method of partition of the article jointly owned is not reached, co-owners may request the court for partition, and the court may order the auction of the article concerned, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the partition; and

(Article 269 of the Civil Act). Co-owned property partition by judgment is, in principle, divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of co-owners. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, and if it is apprehended that the value would be significantly reduced, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and use value after the division.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 4-1, it is recognized that the registration of seizure of the defendant's share among the real estate of this case was completed with regard to the defendant's share in the Republic of Korea, Gwangju City, and D's provisional seizure. In conclusion, the real estate of this case is concerned.