1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the forest land M with the wife population M by auction, which is 6,376 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 11, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the share of 614/6,376 square meters of land M with wife population M 6,376 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. N among the forest land of this case, N is 157/6,376 shares in N, 417/6,376 shares in Defendant C, 423/6,376 shares in Defendant D, 400/6,376 shares in Defendant E, 453/6,376 shares in Defendant G, 2,481/6,376 shares in Defendant G, 268/6,376 shares in Defendant H, 288/6, 289/6,376 shares in Defendant J, 185/6, 376 shares in Defendant J, 269/6, 376 shares in Defendant L, and 420/6,376 shares in Defendant L.

C. N died on August 11, 2014, and Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 6, 2015 as to N’s share 157/6,376 out of the forest land of this case due to a consultation division.

Grounds for recognition: Gap 1, 4, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are other co-owners of the above forest land, for which the partition agreement was not reached, as co-owners of the forest of this case.

In the case of dividing an article jointly owned by a trial, in principle, by dividing it in kind, or by dividing it in kind or by dividing it in kind, if the value thereof is apprehended to be significantly reduced, the auction of the article jointly owned may be ordered to be paid in installments.

Here, the requirement of "undivided in kind" includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the article in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, current use, value of use after the division.

In addition, the phrase “where the value of the division is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind” includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by himself/herself is likely to be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015).