1. The remainder of the sale price calculated by 79,438 square meters of C forest land in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun, and deducting the auction cost from the sale price; and

1. As to the forest land entered in the text of the recognition (hereinafter “the forest of this case”), the fact that the Plaintiff owned 8/12 shares, the Defendant, D, E, and F owned 1/12 shares, respectively, and shared by each other is recognized by the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Co-owners who have created the right to claim partition of co-owned property may claim a partition of the co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268 (1) of the Civil Act), and if the consultation as to the method of partition of the co-owned property has not been reached, co-owners may request a court for partition, and if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof might be reduced remarkably due to such partition, the court may order

(Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may request the Defendant, who is another co-owner, to divide the forest of this case.

3. In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner, but if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such cause, it shall be made by the method of so-called "sale of price" which is divided by ordering auction

The requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" in the payment for sale does not physically strictly interpret it, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, commercial value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da30603 delivered on January 19, 1993, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). The following circumstances, namely, co-owners of the forest of this case have reached five total persons, not closely related to family members, and all expected profits through the forest of this case are different.