1. Two percent of the remainder of the money calculated by subtracting the auction cost from the real estate listed in the separate sheet for auction.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the fact that no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of partition of the common property in the instant real estate does not conflict between the parties, and the Plaintiff has the right to make a partition of co-owned property as to the instant real estate.

2. The partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition shall be, in principle, by the method of in-kind partition as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or if the price might be reduced remarkably as a result, the auction of the co-owned property should be ordered, and if it is likely that the price would decrease substantially as a result thereof, it shall not be divided in kind, but it shall not be physically strict interpretation, and it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the co-owner's share after the partition.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). The fact that C Apartment was built on the instant real estate does not conflict between the parties.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff and the defendant cannot use and take profits from the real estate of this case before the removal of C Apartments, and therefore it is inappropriate to conduct in-kind division.

3. Conclusion, it is reasonable to divide the remainder of the land of this case by auction and the amount calculated by subtracting auction costs from the price by one half according to the share ratio between the plaintiff and the defendant.