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

Attached Form

The fact that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party, and the Defendant owned the real estate indicated in the list in the same proportion of shares as the order does not conflict. Since there was no agreement on the method of partition among the above co-owners, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed D have the right to claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendant based on their co-ownership.

The partition of co-owned property by judgment is in principle, in kind, as long as a rational partition can be made according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible or difficult to divide it in kind in light of various circumstances, such as co-ownership relation or the shape, location, use of land, economic value, etc., or if it is difficult or difficult to do so, or if the value might be reduced remarkably

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002; 97Da18219, Sept. 9, 1997; 2007; 200Da18219, Apr. 12, 200). Real estate listed in the attached list is all buildings, and insofar as it is not deemed an aggregate building that can be divided in kind due to shares, it is difficult to divide in kind or if it is considerably reduced in value at the time of the division in kind, it is fair and reasonable to divide the amount according to the shares of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) D

However, since it is not reasonable that one of the parties bears the litigation costs of the co-owned property partition case, one of the parties shall bear it individually.