1. The real estate stated in the attached list shall be put to an auction and 1/2 of the amount after deducting the auction expenses from the price shall be put to the auction.

1. Registration relations with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet jointly owned by the original defendant related to the registration of the real estate of this case shall be as follows:

(1) On October 17, 2016, on October 14, 2016, with respect to the registration of transfer of the ownership of each share of Plaintiff C/B (the cause of inheritance) on October 17, 2016, as to the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (the maximum amount of KRW 300 million) in the name of the Defendant on October 21, 2016, the registration of transfer of ownership (the Defendant’s right to collateral security established with respect to the shares of the previous C/C according to this), which was extinguished due to confusion, on March 8, 2017, as to the Plaintiff’s share (1/2) on March 8, 2017, the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (the maximum amount of claims KRW 193,700,000) in the name of the Defendant (the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security in the name of the Defendant) on February 27, 2018.

2. The Plaintiff, who is a co-owner, did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant real estate between the original Defendant, and thus, may request the Defendant to divide the instant real estate.

Therefore, regarding the method of dividing the real estate of this case, since the real estate of this case is an apartment unit, it is not divided in kind. One of the plaintiff and the defendant acquires the ownership in whole and the other one of the plaintiff and the defendant consider the way to compensate for the value. However, as seen earlier, two of the other creditors' shares are set up in the future as to the shares of the plaintiff, and as to the land which is to be owned by the other party after the division, the mortgage remains in existence according to the ratio of shares. Since one party should compensate for the value reduction arising therefrom, since mutual compensation relation becomes complicated, it is inappropriate for one party to acquire the jointly owned property and compensate for the value of the other party.

Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on January 19, 1993