1. The amount of real estate listed in the separate sheet remaining after the cost of auction is deducted from the proceeds of auction;

1. The judgment costs as to the cause of the claim, the defendant (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") and the designated parties are co-ownership owners of real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case"), and there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff's share was 9/72, and that the agreement on the method of partition of the real estate of this case was not reached between the plaintiff and the defendant and the designated parties. The partition of co-owned property by judgment is, in principle, by the method of in-kind division as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to each co-owner's share. However, even if it is impossible in kind or even if it is possible in kind, if the price is likely to decrease remarkably, the auction of the co-owned property should be ordered to divide the price into money in kind. However, in the payment division, it cannot be divided into "in kind."

"The requirement does not physically strictly interpret it, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). In the instant case, all co-owners, including the plaintiff and the defendant, wish to divide the auction proceeds. The instant real estate is not appropriate in light of its use value after the division, etc.

Therefore, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and the Defendant in proportion to co-ownership, which was put up for auction and deducted the auction cost.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by dividing the land of this case as above.