1. The plaintiff shall submit the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

The Plaintiff (acquisition of shares in the leased period through public sale) and the Defendants shared the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the ratio of the Plaintiff, Defendant D, E, E, 4/25, Defendant B, and F, Defendant C1/25, respectively, and Defendant C1/25. The agreement on the method of division was not reached.

In light of the current status of the use of the instant real estate (the land among the instant real estate is the site of the building, and the building is a single-story, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff and the Defendants to independently use each divided portion even if the instant real estate is divided in kind according to their respective co-ownership shares), co-owners’ relationship, and (a) seizure of each share, see Supreme Court Decision 92Da30603, Jan. 19, 1993, there is a concern that the value may not be reduced remarkably due to the division or division.

(Reasons for Recognition: Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings). Therefore, the real estate of this case shall be put to an auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be divided by means of distribution according to the respective shares ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.