1. The remainder of the amount calculated by selling 9,917 square meters of the forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun for auction and deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds thereof.

1. In full view of the entry of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared the land listed in Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to each share listed in the separate sheet, and the fact that the parties did not reach an agreement on partition of co-owned property as to the instant land between the aforementioned parties.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant land, can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the remaining co-owners.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. The partition of co-owned property by judgment is in principle divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. The auction of the goods can be ordered only when the value of the goods is likely to be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind. In the payment division, the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division, etc. of the co-owner's share.

in the case of a co-owner's act of dividing in kind, "if the value of the property is likely to decrease substantially, the value of the property may decrease substantially," also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner might decrease significantly more than the value of the property before the division.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, there are various circumstances to recognize the instant case by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, there is no access road to the instant land based on the geographical features of a remote mountainous district, the existence of graves in part of the instant land, and the shares of Plaintiffs A and F, respectively.