1. The Plaintiff shall sell the 218m2 in Jeju-si D Forest land to an auction and the remainder after deducting the auction cost from the price.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the land indicated in the order is jointly owned by the plaintiff, the defendant's share in 96/108, and the defendant's share in 12/108, and it is recognized that currently the plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the land division method.

If so, the plaintiff can request the court to divide the above land as co-owner against the defendant who is another co-owner.

(Civil Act Article 269(1) of the Civil Act). Furthermore, the method of partition includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location or area of the co-owned property, the use value of the co-owned property in kind, and the co-owned property in kind, if it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in kind, in light of the nature of the co-owned property, its location or area, its use value after the division, etc.

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the fact that the area corresponding to the Defendant’s share ratio is approximately 24.22 square meters (i.e., 218 square meters x 12/108 square meters x 12/108) and the fact that it is difficult to divide the land in kind with the land of the same area under the statutory provisions on the minimum land size limit, and that there is no way to listen to the Defendant’s opinion whose location is unknown, it is appropriate to use the method of distributing the remaining amount after deducting the auction expense from the price by selling the land at auction as described in

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.