1. The remaining amount of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 which is put for auction and the auction cost is deducted from the price;

The Plaintiff and the Defendants owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in proportion to their respective shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and the fact that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the instant real estate has not been reached does not conflict between the parties.

In light of the location, area and utilization status of the instant real estate, surrounding circumstances, use value, co-owners’ share ratio, etc., known by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5-9 and the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate into price by making it inappropriate for the partition of co-owned property by the method of in-kind division.

Therefore, the real estate of this case is sold to the plaintiff and the defendants according to the ratio of each ratio stated in the separate sheet of co-ownership in attached Form 2, after deducting the auction cost from the auction price.