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

1. The Plaintiff, in fact, owns 2/3 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), and the Defendant owns 1/3 shares of each of the above real estate.

The shares of the above defendant were seized due to the disposition of arrears such as Yongsan Tax Office, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and Seodaemun Tax Office.

There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to prohibit the division of each real estate of this case, and there is no agreement on the division method of each real estate of this case as of the date of closing of argument of this case

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the agreement on the method of partition of each real estate of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, was not constituted. Thus, the Plaintiff may claim partition of co-owned property of this case to the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. The method of partition of co-owned property is, in principle, divided in kind, but the co-owned property may be divided according to auction only when it is not possible to divide it in kind or the value thereof may be reduced remarkably by division.

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. According to the above facts, several delinquent dispositions have been made against the Defendant’s share among each of the instant real property, and such seizure continues to exist on the whole co-owned property according to the previous share ratio even after the co-owned property was divided in kind. Thus, it is impossible to divide each of the instant real property into the real property in kind.

In addition, it is very complicated to compensate for the depreciation of the value according to the existing seizure, so it is difficult to divide the value in kind according to the compensation for value.

Therefore, since each real estate of this case constitutes a case where the co-owned property cannot be divided in kind, it is subject to the payment due to the auction.

Therefore, each of the real estate in this case is put up for auction and from the proceeds of sale.