1. The amount remaining after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the auction attached to the real estate listed in the attached list 1 for the auction;

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 10, real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 1130 shares and the Defendants owned co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet No. 11730 shares and the Defendants owned co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and it can be acknowledged that the agreement on division of the land of this case has not been reached between the plaintiff and the Defendants. Thus, the plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants for

The partition of co-owned property based on a judgment may be made in kind, in principle, or in kind, in a case where it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or in the case of the division in kind, if the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced, with an order of auction. In the case of payment, the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, use value after the division, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002). Considering the land category of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the Defendants’ co-ownership ratio, location and area, etc., the above real estate is deemed the most reasonable method to divide the price through auction.

If so, it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the plaintiff and the defendants to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price by being attached to the real estate listed in the attached list 1 in the auction.