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

1. According to the current status of real estate registration and the statement of evidence Nos. 1-1-2 of the plaintiff and the defendant's assertion No. 1-2, the plaintiff and the defendant share each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") with 7/10 shares, and 3/10 shares, respectively.

The plaintiff asserts that D and E are co-owners of the real estate of this case (other than the plaintiff and the defendant, we do not accept the defendant's argument that the real estate of this case constitutes co-owners of the real estate of this case). The plaintiff asserted as the lawsuit of this case that since the real estate of this case cannot be divided in kind by its nature, it is the best way to divide the price into

2. We examine the judgment, and there is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the method of dividing the instant real estate.

On the other hand, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 4, the real estate of this case, namely, ① division in kind is restricted pursuant to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Full-gun Planning; ② a mortgage is established with respect to the Defendant’s share in the real estate of this case; ② a division in kind is established in the name of the FF association, and the part to be owned by the Plaintiff after the division in kind would continue to exist in the ratio of shares; thus, the Defendant may have a very complicated relationship with the Plaintiff, such as compensating the Plaintiff for the loss in value, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the situation of sharing the real estate of this case, it is recognized that the real estate of this case, rather than dividing in kind, should be distributed in accordance with the ratio of shares of the Plaintiff

3. According to the conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by ordering an auction to divide the price with respect to the instant real estate.