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 evidence No. 1-1-2 of the co-owned property partition claim No. 1-1 and 2, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff owns 2/13 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case"), and the defendant owns 11/13 shares of each real estate.

Until the closing date of the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each of the instant real estate.

Therefore, one of the co-owners of each real estate of this case can claim a partition of co-owned property against the defendant, who is the remaining co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall, in principle, be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be substantially damaged due to such division, the proceeds thereof shall

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act: Provided, That the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" in the payment shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned, and the use value after the division.

According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, each of the instant real estate is practically impossible to be divided in kind, as a brick slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slives, stores

Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the price of each of the instant real estate in kind through an auction because it is difficult or inappropriate to consider the status of use, the value of use after division, etc.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.