1. The remainder of the sale price calculated by selling 32,232 square meters of forest C in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeong-gun, and deducting the auction cost from the sale price.

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the plaintiff and the defendant are co-owners of the land of this case, and the plaintiff can recognize the fact that they own 10/11 of the land of this case, and 1/11 of the defendant, respectively, and the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of land of this case

Therefore, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, has the right to claim the partition of the instant land against the Defendant, another co-owner.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. In principle, partition of co-owned property according to the relevant legal principles shall be made in kind so as to allow a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). However, when it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, if the value of the co-owned property might be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, it may be made by ordering auction of the co-owned

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides that the requirement of “undivided in kind” includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the property, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of use after the division, etc.

In addition, the phrase “where the value of the division is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind” includes cases where, even if a co-owner is a person, the value of the portion to be owned by himself/herself is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the value of the share before the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015).

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraiser D’s appraisal: (i) the instant land is divided in kind.