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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) shares 9/31 shares and the Defendants shares 2/31 shares, respectively.

B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the instant real estate until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in-kind or possible in-kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to the auction of the co-owned property, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered, and the price shall be divided by the method of price division. In the case of price division, the requirement that "it shall not be divided in-kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in-kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the partition.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). C.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., the fact that it appears difficult to draw up a spot distribution plan agreed by all the parties, and Defendant D, F, G, and J did not want the payment of the Plaintiff’s claim, but the above Defendants and the remaining Defendants other than Defendant M did not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim, together with the real estate of this case.