1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to their shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. The agreement on the division of co-owned property between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was not reached.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 8, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Co-owners who have created the right to partition of co-owned property may file a claim for partition of the co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If the consultation on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court; if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof might be reduced remarkably due to such partition, the

(Article 269 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim a partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

B. According to Article 22 of the Farmland Act, farmland cannot be divided if the size of each parcel after division does not exceed 2,000 square meters. In the event that the real estate of this case is divided into 1,931 square meters as farmland for which the agricultural infrastructure improvement project was implemented, it is obvious that both the Plaintiff and the Defendants owned the land below 2,000 square meters. Thus, the real estate of this case is inappropriate to divide it in kind.

Inasmuch as special circumstances are not acknowledged that the total price compensation method is allowed, it is reasonable to divide the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price by selling the real estate at auction.

3. The conclusion is that the real estate of this case is divided by auction and division, and it is so decided as per Disposition.