1. The amount of the real estate listed in the annex (1) remaining after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds thereof;

1. As to the real estate listed in the attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) and the Defendants share the shares in the shares of co-ownership listed in the attached Form 2.

Plaintiff

There is no agreement as to the method of partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case between the Defendants and the Defendants.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff et al. is a co-owned share holder of the land of this case and can claim the division of the land of this case against the defendants pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, and the agreement on partition of co-owned property was not formed. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the method of partition of co-owned property, the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the land of this case is a site where the building exists on the ground, and considering the individual area and form of the land of this case, and the size of shares owned by the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendants, it is deemed difficult to fairly divide the land of this case in kind according to the share ratio between the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendants, and it is difficult or inappropriate to seek equitable partition among co-owners, while maintaining the utility value of the land of this case in kind.

Therefore, since it is the most equitable and reasonable method to divide the price through an auction, the land in this case is sold to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price is divided in a way that the plaintiff et al. and the defendants share in the auction.

3. The claim against the Defendants by the Plaintiff et al. against the Defendants by the Plaintiff et al. shall be accepted on the grounds of their reasoning, and the litigation cost shall be ordered to be borne individually in consideration