1. The amount of money remaining after deducting the expenses of auction from the proceeds of each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 sold at auction;

1. In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence No. 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") at the share ratio listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and that the real estate of this case was the house and its site, and that the consultation on partition of co-owned property as to the real estate of this

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendant, the remaining co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1)

2. The following circumstances revealed through the method of partition of co-owned property: (a) since the instant real estate is a house and a site, the use of the instant real estate can be difficult if divided in kind; and (b) considering the fact that the Defendant wishes to divide in kind, it is difficult or inappropriate to seek fair partition among co-owners, maintaining the utility value of the instant real estate by the method of partition in kind, in view of the fact that the Defendant wishes to do so

Considering the circumstances above (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002), it is the most equitable and reasonable method to sell the real estate at auction and distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction expense from the price to co-owners according to the share sharing ratio.

3. Conclusion, the real estate of this case shall be put to an auction and the payment shall be decided as per Disposition.