1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 152m2 at an auction shall be attached Form 2.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the claim for partition of the jointly owned property, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared at each ratio of 152 square meters in the annexed co-ownership list in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

In addition to the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, the real estate of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the real estate in kind in light of its size, the shares of the parties concerned, the use value after the division, etc.

There is no evidence that the plaintiff and the defendants agreed on the division of co-owned property.

The plaintiff seems to have no relationship with the defendants as a purchaser of shares through the compulsory auction procedure, and there is no personal relationship between D and D, the former owner, and networkF.

The real estate of this case is classified as a site, but it seems that the plaintiff or the defendants did not directly use the real estate.

Article 57(1) of the Building Act and Article 80 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act shall apply to the site on which a building is located, which can be divided into at least 60 square meters, and in the case of a site without a building, Article 56(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 51(1)5(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

In order to divide land below the partition-restricted area under Article 57 (1) of the Building Act pursuant to the item, permission for development activities shall be obtained.

In this case, the data that there was a permit to engage in development activities for dividing land less than the size subject to partition did not have been submitted.

The substance of the co-ownership, in principle, should be divided in kind, and the defendant G, H, and I expressed the opinion that they want to divide the real property of this case in kind through a written response.

However, the circumstances, such as the Defendants’ direct use of the instant real estate, were not revealed in the pleadings, and the said Defendants wishing to divide the instant real estate in kind.