1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of auction by attaching the immovables listed in the attached list 1 to the auction;

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff (Appointed Party), the appointed party, and the defendants shared real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") at each ratio listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 2, and the facts that the plaintiff (Appointed Party), the designated party, and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of the apartment of this case.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the agreement on the method of division among co-owners of the apartment of this case was not reached, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party may file a claim against the defendants for the partition of the apartment of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, the method of division is examined.

The partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division, or, even if it is impossible to divide it in-kind or even if it is possible in-kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to the auction of the co-owned property, by the method of so-called payment division by ordering the auction of the co-owned property.

In full view of the purport of the whole argument by the evidence above, the apartment of this case cannot be physically divided as a single building, which is the object of partitioned ownership, and it is difficult for co-owners to fairly divide the apartment of this case, while maintaining the utility value of the apartment of this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the apartment of this case by the method of price division.

Therefore, the apartment of this case shall be divided by the method of payment in installments, and it is so decided as per Disposition.