1. The remainder of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the cost of the auction from the proceeds of the auction;

According to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants share each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") in their shares in the separate sheet, and the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on partition of the real estate of this case, and there was no agreement on the prohibition of partition.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim the division of the said real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, including the fact that the Defendants did not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for subdivision, and that they did not submit a written reply, or that they did not appear on the date of pleading, even though they received an application for modification of the complaint, purport of the claim, and cause of the claim, including the content of the claim for subdivision of auction, and that the real estate of this case appears to have significantly decreased the value of use if it was divided due to the existence of graves on the ground

Therefore, pursuant to Article 269 (2) of the Civil Code, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the sale price by selling the real estate at an auction to the original defendant's share.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by dividing the instant real estate through an auction.