1. The amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 remaining after deducting the costs of auction from the proceeds of auction.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) according to the share ratio as shown in the separate sheet 2.

B. There was no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding each of the instant real estate, and no agreement on division was reached until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since an agreement was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants who jointly own each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff may file a claim with the court for the division of each of the instant real estate in accordance with Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

(b) If the article jointly owned is unable to be divided in kind or if the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably due to a division, the court may order an auction of the article; and

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. In principle, division of co-owned property by trial shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" in the price division is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use of the co-owned property, use value after the partition, etc.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). C.

In this case, ① the number of each real estate in this case is not stated four, ② the real estate in this case is located.