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

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 16 (including each number), the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the share ratio of 3/11, and 2/11, respectively. The Plaintiff and the Defendants may recognize the fact that no agreement on the division of the instant real estate has been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. As such, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim for the division against the Defendants, other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

In light of the following circumstances, the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the method of partition, namely, the real estate of this case, is land and its ground buildings, which are likely to significantly fall in the value and use value when divided in kind in light of their nature and structure, and the use status and management status of the real estate of this case, and the economic situation of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the real estate of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind the real estate of this case into the real estate of this case, in fact to acquire the shares of other co-owners and to compensate for the price

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant real estate is sold by auction, and the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price is an equitable and reasonable division method to the Plaintiff and the Defendants, so it is reasonable to view that it is a fair and reasonable division method as to the division of the instant apartment. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.