1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the apartment as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) is jointly owned by the plaintiff, defendant B, and defendant D in proportion to the shares of 1/6 and 3/6, and it can be acknowledged that there was no agreement on the division of the apartment of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff, co-owner of the apartment of this case, who is the co-owner of the other co-owner, may file a claim for the division against the defendants as co-owner pursuant to Article 269

2. In light of the fact that Defendant B and C submitted a written reply to the effect that they would have the intent to purchase the Plaintiff’s shares, but it is difficult to reach an agreement between the Plaintiff and the said Defendants, such as not attending the conciliation procedure referred by this court, and the common property subject to the division of this case is an apartment building, which is an aggregate building, and the value of the apartment of this case may be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind in light of its nature and form, it is reasonable to deem that the apartment of this case constitutes a case where it is

Therefore, the method of selling the apartment of this case to auction and then dividing the price according to the share ratio between the plaintiff and the defendants is the fair and reasonable method of division.

3. The conclusion is that the division of the apartment of this case is determined as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.