1. The amount remaining after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling the site listed in the attached list to an auction;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A site listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant site”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff (the appointed party), the sperm, the Defendant B (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) and the Defendant C in proportion to the ratio described in paragraph (1) of the order.

B. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) demanded Defendant C to divide the instant site, but did not reach an agreement, filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff et al. asserts that the plaintiff et al. of the instant site should divide the price through auction as it is not appropriate to divide the instant site in kind. The defendant C asserts that the share of the plaintiff et al. and the defendant C should be divided in kind, and then the price should be divided for the share of the plaintiff et al

B. (1) The Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendant C did not reach an agreement on the method of partition as a co-owner of the instant land, which caused the claim for partition of the jointly owned property. As such, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) may file a judicial claim against the Defendants for the relevant partition pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

(2) As a matter of principle, it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article jointly owned in kind in light of the nature, location, and size of the article jointly owned and the use value after the division, and it is also difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in kind in consideration of the nature of the article jointly owned, and it is also that the value of the article might be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide the article in kind or if it is divided in kind.