1. The remainder of the sale price calculated by selling 45,657 square meters of the Janyangyang-gun, Seoyangyang-gun for auction and deducting the auction cost from the sale price.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the real estate of this case is jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendants according to the ratio stated in the "share" column among co-owner and share indication attached to attached Table 1. Since the plaintiff and the defendants, who are co-owners, did not reach agreement as to the method of partition, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the defendants, who are other co-owners, in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Method of partition;

A. The plaintiff primarily sought the partition of co-owned property in kind and by auction as the method of partition, and thus, it is difficult to render a judgment of dismissal of claim on the ground that the party's request as to the method of partition is not binding upon the court, but the court's request as to the method of partition as the form of partition lawsuit is not reasonable.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s application regarding a reasonable method of partition cannot be deemed to be an independent lawsuit at each one’s request, and merely an attack and defense means. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above claim is not judged separately.

B. Meanwhile, the partition of co-owned property by a trial is in principle divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. The auction of the goods can be ordered when the price of the goods might be significantly reduced if the division in kind is impossible or in kind is made in kind. In the case of the division in kind, the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's share.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). In light of the above legal doctrine, the above legal doctrine is deemed to have been applied.