1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for auction from the proceeds of each real estate listed in the separate sheet sold to an auction;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants share the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2, which is its ground building (hereinafter “instant building”) according to the ratio of shares of each co-owner listed in the attached Table No. 1.

B. At the time of June 12, 192, the instant building was newly constructed on the first floor size by Defendant F, E, G, H, and I (hereinafter “previous co-owners”) who was co-owners of the instant land.

The building of this case is composed of three deputy members and retail stores. Defendant F and H, and I leased three deputy members, and Defendant E and G leased the retail store part.

After that, H shares in the instant land and building were transferred to Defendant C via J, and I shares were transferred to the Plaintiffs via K, and G shares were transferred to Defendant D, respectively.

C. Until the closing date of the instant argument, the agreement on the method of dividing the instant land and building was not reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and there was no partition prohibition agreement on the instant land and building.

[Ground for Recognition] Defendant E: The remaining Defendants of confessions: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs, co-owners of the land and building of this case, can file a claim against the defendants, other co-owners, for the partition of the land and building of this case. 2) The above defendants agreed to own the building of this case by dividing it into three deputy owners and retail stores part of the building of this case among co-owners. Thus, the land and building of this case are in co-ownership relation, and the claim for partition of co-owned property is unjustifiable. b)