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

1. In full view of the purport of the evidence No. 1-1, No. 1-2, and No. 3 of the co-owned property partition claim, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant house”) is owned by the Plaintiff at the ratio of 72/100, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, respectively, at the ratio of 7/100, by 7/100, and it can be acknowledged that there was no agreement as to the method of partition of the instant house between the Plaintiff, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties by the closing date of argument. Thus, the Plaintiff may seek co-owned property partition against the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties.

2. Regarding the method of partition of co-owned property, public property shall, in principle, be divided in kind, but if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof might be reduced remarkably, the court may order auction of things;

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Code. Here, the requirement that "shall not be divided in kind" is not a physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, value of use after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties jointly share the land and the housing on its own, and thus it is impossible or difficult for the Plaintiff to divide the land in kind. The market price of the instant housing is 503,129,190 won, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties to the instant case to seek compensation through money deemed reasonable, and thus, the agreement is not reached despite the Plaintiff’s continuous request for consultation.