1. The remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale by selling each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet;

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners of each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the land in this case"), and facts that the agreement on partition of co-owned property between the plaintiff and the defendants was not constituted. Thus, the plaintiff can file a co-owned property partition against the defendants pursuant to Article 269 (1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, the method of division is examined.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing evidence, buildings including housing exist on each ground listed in the separate sheet, and legal superficies on each land listed in the separate sheet for the owners of the above building may be established, so the Plaintiff may not actually use the pertinent land in the case of dividing the land in kind. In full view of the fact that the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral security has been completed with respect to the Defendants’ share among the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, it is reasonable to divide the instant land by the method of payment.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by dividing the land of this case into the method of payment in installments.