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

1. Claim for partition of co-owned property;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the fact that there was no dispute between the parties as to the method of partition of the instant real estate, or that there was no agreement between the parties, is recognized by the evidence No. 1-2 and No. 2.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim a partition of the instant real estate, which is jointly owned.

B. As to the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant asserts that ① the Plaintiff filed a claim for the division of the property jointly owned by the instant real estate before the instant lawsuit, and the conciliation was concluded, ② the lease proceeds, etc. of the instant real estate were distributed unfairly, ③ the Plaintiff created a collateral on the entire instant real estate (including the Defendant’s shares) and thus, the said collateral should be cancelled first in order to divide the jointly owned property.

According to the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for partition of co-owned property. In the above lawsuit, it is recognized that the conciliation (in Incheon District Court 2017s.3540) with the purport of "the defendant approves and cooperates with respect to extension of the due date for payment of the right to collateral security established on the real estate of this case, and the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit of this case."

However, a co-owner may claim a partition of the co-owned property at any time unless there is a “agreement to not divide the jointly-owned property.” Thus, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking a partition of the jointly-owned property, but the conciliation of which was completed above cannot be deemed unreasonable on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff’s

Secondly, the circumstance that the Defendant’s claim for rent of the instant real estate was unfairly distributed, or that the right to collateral security was established on the instant real estate with the Plaintiff as the debtor.