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

1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, and the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1-4 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) according to the ratio indicated in the separate sheet, and that there was no agreement on the division of the instant real estate, which is jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendants,

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim a partition of the instant real estate jointly owned, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, against the Defendants, another co-owner.

B. In a case where the co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide the co-owned property in kind or if the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced, the auction of the property may be ordered. Here, the requirement does not physically be interpreted strictly. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the property, use situation, use value after the division, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009). 2) The above evidence can be known from the above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009).