1. The amount remaining after selling the 1749m2 in Cheong-do, Cheong-do, Chungcheongnam-do and deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of auction.

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants shared the plaintiff 3/8 shares, the defendant B3/8 shares, and the defendant C2/8 shares, respectively, in proportion to the share of the plaintiff 3/8 shares, the defendant C2/8 shares, and it can be acknowledged that there was no agreement on partition of the real estate between them up to now. Thus, the plaintiff, co-owner, can file a co-owned property partition claim against the defendants pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition may be divided in kind, in principle, or in kind, as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner, or if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced if it is difficult to do so. In the payment division, the requirement that “it is not possible to divide in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner’s share.

(2) The following circumstances are as follows: