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

1. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, respectively, with co-ownership of 1/5 shares, taking into account the absence of dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in the separate sheet No. 1-4, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate, which is public property by the closing date of argument

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of the instant real estate pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. According to the evidence by the method of partition of co-owned property, among the instant real estate, the fact that the registration of seizure was completed with the right holder on June 27, 2012 as to the co-ownership share of Defendant B among the instant real estate as the State. In full view of the above acknowledged facts, it is reasonable to deem that the instant real estate cannot be divided in kind as it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind, as it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it into the real estate in kind.

Therefore, it is deemed most reasonable to divide the real estate of this case by auction.

3. In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the real estate of this case was put to an auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be distributed to the plaintiff and the defendants as co-ownership share