1. The remainder of the money obtained by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale after selling the real estate listed in the attached list;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners holding 1/3 shares in each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding the instant real estate, and no agreement on the method of division of the said real estate has been reached until the conclusion of pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for partition of the instant real estate jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property in kind can be divided in kind as long as the share of each co-owner can be reasonably divided. However, even if it can not be divided in kind or in form, if the value might be significantly reduced due to the auction of the co-owned property, it can be divided in kind. In the payment division, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property, and it also includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind if it is divided in kind." Even if the co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's share might remarkably decrease the value of the share before the division (see, e.g., evidence and evidence of April 12, 2002).