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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) is jointly owned by the plaintiff 4/6 and 1/6, respectively. It can be acknowledged that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants on the method of partition of the instant land until the closing of pleadings. Thus, the plaintiff, co-owner of the instant land, as co-owner of the instant land, can file a co-owned property partition claim against the defendants, who are other co-owners.

2. The partition of co-owned property, based on the decision on the method of partition of co-owned property, shall be made by the method of in-kind partition, in principle, insofar as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares 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 shall be ordered, and if it is possible in form, the price 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 in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the co-owned property in light of the nature, location, and use value after the

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). Considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff filed a claim for auction division as to the land of this case, namely, the Plaintiff’s claim for auction division as to the entry of the evidence No. 1 in this case, the Defendants did not present any specific partition plan, the registration of provisional seizure by D Union, the registration of the race tax, the race tax, the race tax, the race-si, and the Ulsan District Court’s seizure as to the share of the land of this case was completed, and the land of this case remains on the whole jointly owned property according to the previous share ratio, after the in-kind division.