1. The plaintiffs are the plaintiffs with the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds by selling the AA Forest land 2,425 square meters at the auction at the time of Jinjin-si.

1. In full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement No. 1 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the fact that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared the land listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) at each ratio listed in the separate co-owner and share list, and the fact that the consultation on partition of co-owned property as to the instant land

The Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, who are the remaining co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1)

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, comprehensively taking account of the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is acknowledged that the land of this case was land in the form of road between 26 and 26 land. Considering the above fact, the land of this case is a land in the form of road between several lands.