1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list;

1. Partition of the article jointly owned;

A. It is recognized that the original and the Defendant’s co-owners listed in the separate sheet No. 3 list jointly own the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list at the ratio of each co-owner’s share, the original and the Defendant’s co-owners listed in the separate sheet No. 4 jointly own each of the pertinent co-owner’s share (the combination of each of the above real estate referred to as “each of the instant real estate”), and each of the co-owners did not reach agreement on the division of each of the above real estate. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each of the instant real estate of this case, may

B. As to the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s argument, the Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted that each of the instant real estate belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court because the Plaintiff and the Defendants actually inherited property from their first-friendly deceased F. However, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the shares were transferred in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the ground of donation around 1982 before the deceased’s death, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 List No. 1 was jointly owned as a result of the division of inherited property around May 197. Since each of the said real estate was jointly owned as a result of the division of inherited property, the shares as shown in the separate sheet No. 3 and No. 4 were formed through the series of sale and purchase, donation, etc., and thus it cannot be deemed as jointly inherited property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Moreover, the Family Court’s disposition on division of inherited property under Article 2(1)2(b)10 of the Family Litigation Act is distributed among co-inheritors at a guardianship discretion, and the above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant C shall reject the instant claim as a claim against the will of the majority of the right holders of each real estate of this case.