1.The cost shall be the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the annex list.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by the plaintiff and the defendant as 1/2 shares, and that co-owned property partition consultation with regard to the instant real estate was not concluded between the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act

Furthermore, we examine the partition method.

According to Article 22 (2) of the Farmland Act, farmland for which a project for improving agricultural production infrastructure has been implemented under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act shall not be divided except where the area of each parcel after division exceeds 2,000 square meters.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the real estate of this case is farmland to which Article 22 (2) of the Farmland Act applies, and the area of the real estate of this case is only 567.1m2, it can be acknowledged that the real estate of this case cannot be divided in kind according to the above facts.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by dividing the instant real estate according to the method of payment in installments.