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;

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, and it is recognized that there was no agreement on the method of partition of the instant apartment, which is public property between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff, the co-owner of the instant apartment, as the co-owner of the instant apartment, may file a claim against the Defendants, the other co-owner, for the partition of the instant land pursuant to Article

2. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition shall be, in principle, by the method of spot partition so far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to each co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such cause, it shall be done by the method of so-called price partition ordering the auction of the co-owned property to divide the price;

According to the above evidence, it is most equitable and reasonable to distribute the price through an auction since it is impossible to divide the apartment of this case in kind due to its structural use.

Therefore, the apartment house of this case shall be sold at auction and its price shall be divided according to the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by deciding to divide the apartment of this case as above.