1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be put to an auction and the proceeds of the auction shall be deducted from the proceeds of the auction;

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole and the arguments, the plaintiff (appointed party), the designated parties (hereinafter "the plaintiff, etc.") and the defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the same list (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), and there was no partition agreement between the plaintiff, etc. and the defendants as to the real estate of this case, and there was no partition agreement. Thus, the plaintiff, etc., a co-owner of the real estate of this case, may request the defendants, who are other co-owners, to divide the above real estate of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances acknowledged by the Defendants, including the fact that the Defendants did not comply with the request for subdivision by the Plaintiff, etc., and that they did not appear on the date of pleading while receiving a written complaint of this case claiming the auction division, etc., the real estate of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the real estate in kind.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 269(2) of the Civil Act, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds from the sale to the auction to the plaintiff and the defendants according to their shares.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by dividing the instant real estate through an auction.