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. Facts of recognition;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally owned by the Defendant and C, respectively, 1/2 shares, but the Plaintiff owned the entire shares of C on April 6, 2002. The same year on the grounds of sale on April 6, 2002.

4. 11. After completing the registration of transfer, ownership was acquired.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree on the partition of co-owned property as to the instant real estate.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 3; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff can file a claim against the defendant for partition of co-owned property of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. As a matter of principle, the partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind in a manner that makes it possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is possible to divide in kind, the auction of the goods can be ordered, and the price can be reduced remarkably. In the price division, "it cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use situation, and use value after the division.

In addition, the phrase "if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" also includes the case where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned independently by the in-kind division is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, according to the health care unit and evidence No. 1-1, No. 1-2, and No. 3, the Defendant’s shares among each of the instant real estate.