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

1. Claim for partition of co-owned property

A. There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants as co-ownership share ratio. The real estate of this case did not reach an agreement as to the partition of co-owned property by the date of closing argument of this case, and there is no agreement prohibiting partition, respectively.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant real estate, may file a claim for the division of the instant real estate with the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. In principle, a method of partition of co-owned property by a wrong judgment is to 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 it in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be significantly reduced if it is made in kind, an auction may be ordered to divide it. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide it in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's share.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

As to the instant case, considering all circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as that it is not appropriate to divide the instant real estate into the third floor building consisting of housing and neighborhood living facilities and the site thereof, and that the said real estate does not appear to have the intent or financial capacity of one of the Plaintiffs or the Defendants to purchase it, consultation between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on the resolution of co-ownership relation of each of the instant real estate is concluded.