1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who sold the 34,804 square meters of the Gu-U.S. I forest to an auction and deducted the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff and the Defendants owned co-ownership shares as shown in the separate sheet.

B. There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants prohibiting the division of the instant land, and no agreement on the method of dividing the instant land was reached as of the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the agreement on the method of partition of the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, a co-owner of the instant land, was not constituted. Therefore, the Plaintiff may claim a partition of co-owned land in the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, as to the method of partition, the partition of co-owned property, in principle, or according to Article 269(2) of the Civil Act, if it is impossible to divide in kind in kind or if the value of the co-owned property might be reduced remarkably, the court may order the auction of the co-owned property to pay in kind, and if it is impossible to divide in kind, it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation of the co-owned property, use value after the division, etc.

However, considering the number of co-owners of the land of this case and their respective shares, size, shape, current utilization situation, market price, and form and size of the land after division, it is deemed difficult to divide the land of this case into money in kind due to its nature. Thus, it is reasonable to divide the remaining money after deducting auction expenses from the price of the land of this case into the auction and the distribution of the remaining money to the plaintiff and the defendants in proportion to their co-ownership.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed as without merit, and the conjunctive claim is accepted as a ground for appeal.