1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") can be acknowledged that the plaintiff (appointed party, simply hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), K 2/20 shares, L 2/20 shares, 2/20 shares in the designated party L 2/20 shares, each of the Defendants owned 2/20 shares, and the plaintiff and the designated parties proposed the division of the common property to the defendants on September 5, 2017, but did not reach an agreement thereon.

According to the above facts of recognition, there was no agreement on the method of partition between the plaintiff, the designated parties, and the defendants, who are co-owners of the building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff has a co-ownership right against the defendants as to the co-owned share.

Furthermore, according to the above attached evidence as to the method of division, it is recognized that the building of this case is an inappropriate real estate for dividing it into a divided and registered commercial building, so it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the auction price to each co-owner's share ratio.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is legitimate, and it is decided to accept it.