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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and their co-ownership shares are 3/4 of the Plaintiff, and 1/4 of the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of division of the instant apartment until the date of closing the argument.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the apartment of this case, may file a claim for the partition of the apartment of this case against the Defendant, who is another co-owner.

B. In a case where a co-owned property is divided through a trial, in principle, it is possible to divide the co-owned property in kind in a manner that makes it possible to divide it in kind with a reasonable share of each co-owner. However, in a case where the price of the property is likely to be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind, the auction of the property may be ordered. Here, the requirement of “undivided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, and the value of the property after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002; 209Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009).