1. The remainder of the money obtained by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deducting the auction cost from the proceeds;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants share the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The ratio of shares is 24/30, and the Defendants are 1/30, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on subdivision of the instant real estate, and there was no agreement on subdivision prohibition.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by an erroneous judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of co-owner's share.

(2) In light of the fact that the real estate in this case is an aggregate building and the real estate in this case is physically impossible to divide it according to its equity ratio, it is reasonable to divide the real estate in kind and divide the proceeds therefrom into an auction. In light of the fact that the real estate in this case is an aggregate building, it is reasonable to divide the proceeds therefrom into two parts.

3. If so, the instant real estate is divided as indicated in the Disposition No. 1, and the litigation cost is assessed against each party in consideration of the characteristics of the partition of co-owned property. It is so decided as per Disposition.