1. The remainder of each real estate listed in the separate sheet after deducting the cost of the auction from the proceeds of the auction;

1. Basic facts

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “each real estate of this case”) was owned by E, and the original defendants are children of E.

B. Upon the death of E on February 28, 2001, the Plaintiff and the Defendants acquired each of the instant real estate in proportion to one-fourth shares through inheritance by agreement division.

C. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D agree to divide each of the instant real estate.

However, around March 28, 2014, Defendant B caused a fire to the building (F building) among each of the instant real estate. At present, the second and fourth floors have not completed the restoration work, resulting in an additional recovery cost of KRW 400 million. However, Defendant B’s execution of the division procedure after the completion of the fire restoration work would be beneficial to all the original Defendants.

[Evidence Evidence] Unsatisfy, entry of each subparagraph A, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts acknowledged, the plaintiff did not reach an agreement as to the method of partition of each real estate of this case, which is jointly owned by the original defendant. Thus, the plaintiff can file a partition of co-owned property as to each real estate of this case against the defendants pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

3. Method of partition of the article jointly owned;

A. The partition of co-owned property according to the relevant legal doctrine is in principle a lump-sum partition as far as the co-owners can make a reasonable partition according to their shares. If it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be substantially damaged due to the division, the proceeds should be divided through an auction.

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act: Provided, That the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" in the payment shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and the use value after the division.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).

Judgment

The above evidence is examined.