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

1. The Plaintiff shared each real estate listed in the separate list of basic facts (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) at the ratio of 1/9, 3/9, 3/9, and 4, respectively, due to the Plaintiff’s inheritance, and inheritance. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have an agreement or separate agreement on the partition of co-owned property between the Plaintiff and the Defendants not to partition the co-owned property of this case does not exist between the parties, or that they did not have an agreement or separate agreement on the partition of co-owned property of this case between the parties, or that they did not have a dispute between the parties

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff has the right to claim a partition of co-owned property against the defendants. In light of the area of each real estate of this case, if it is divided according to the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants, it is expected that its property value will be reduced considerably, and therefore, it seems in fact difficult for the plaintiff to conduct a partition of co-owned property by auction division method, the plaintiff is seeking a partition of co-owned property, and some defendants do not raise any objection, and there is no other method of partition, and other circumstances such as the location and area of the real estate of this case as shown in the argument of this case, it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct a partition in kind due to its nature.

Therefore, it would be the most equitable and reasonable way to sell the instant real estate to auction and distribute the price according to the respective shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.