1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds by selling the 4,923 square meters of forest land I in the wife population in Yong-si.

1. According to the purport of Gap's claim for partition of co-owned property, Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff co-owned shares 544/4923 with respect to the land of this case, and the defendants co-owned shares in the "auction partition share" column in the annexed list, and that there was no agreement on the method of partition of the land of this case between the plaintiff and the

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land, which is jointly owned pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a trial on the method of partition of co-owned property, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is apprehended to substantially decrease its value, the auction of the property may be ordered to divide it in kind, and the requirement of "not to divide it in kind" shall not be physically strict interpretation, but shall include the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property in kind;

The phrase "if the value of the portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" includes the case where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by him/her is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 3, 5, and 1 and 2 of Articles 1 through 3, 5, and 1 and 2, i.e., the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of acquiring shares of the other party and paying the price by either party until the date of closing argument, is not reached.