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

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is owned by the Plaintiff at the rate of 15/17 and 2/17.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Entry of Gap 1 and 4 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, as co-owners of the real estate of this case, may request the Defendant, who is the other co-owners, to divide.

(b) The method of partition of the article jointly owned shall be considered as applicable;

Generally, the method of partition of the jointly-owned property can be divided in kind in principle, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or if it is possible to divide in kind, the value may be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to pay in kind.

"Where it is not possible to divide the property in kind" in the payment for the price division shall not be interpreted physically strictly, 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 after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

In full view of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to divide the real estate of this case into the auction and the auction proceeds, as it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the real estate of this case into the auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction costs from the sale proceeds, according to the share ratio of the plaintiff

① It is difficult to divide the instant real estate in kind according to the ratio of shares between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in light of the building including the type, area, etc. of real estate.

② Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant consider the method of dividing the real estate in kind by price compensation, they claim that the real estate in this case should be owned by themselves, and the real estate in this case shall be reverted to any one of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.