1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the auction proceeds by attaching the Fran-gu, Daegu to the auction proceeds the amount of 570.2 square meters.

1. In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 5-1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the plaintiff and the defendants jointly own the land of this case at the share of co-ownership as stated in Paragraph (1) of the above Article, and the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of the land of this case, and according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff, the co-owner of the land of this case, can file a claim for the division against the defendants, the other co-owner of the land of this case,

2. Furthermore, while the Plaintiff wishes to divide the land in kind as stated in the purport of the claim, the following circumstances, which can be comprehensively considered and known, namely, the share ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ co-ownership of the land of this case differs from each other, and the current status and area of use of the land of this case are also different, and the part (a) part 203.1 square meters in sequence connected to the Plaintiff’s own land of this case is adjacent to the Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, which is six-lane-lane-only. On the other hand, the part (b) portion of the land of this case, which is equivalent to 2,3,4,4,5,6,7,8, and2, which is linked to the Defendants’ co-ownership in order to divide the land of this case and the Defendants’ co-ownership of the land of this case, may cause a complicated difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ co-ownership of the land of this case and the land of this case, in light of the following circumstances: