1. The sales price shall be the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the sales price, which is put up for an auction with the wife population C 148 square meters.

1. Evidence No. 1 through 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/3 shares of each of the instant land in common with the wife population C, the wife population C, and 148 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. There was no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant land, and there was no agreement on the partition method of the instant land.

2. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

In addition, the instant land is deemed as falling under the Class-I general residential area, and each ownership share of 49.3 square meters after the spot partition according to each share is less than 60 square meters, which is the minimum partitioned area for raising a building in a residential area under the Building Act. In full view of the circumstances, such as the fact that the area after the division of the instant land is narrow and the use value becomes nearly nonexistent after the division, it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant land in kind, and thus, it is reasonable to make the method of

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by dividing the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale from the auction to the Plaintiff by the method of distributing the remaining amount from the proceeds of the sale to the Plaintiff 1/3, Defendant B, and the real estate joint owner at the ratio of 1/3.