1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the 96,673 square meters of the forest land G, G, G, G, G, G, G, and the proceeds thereof;

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land of 96,673 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the form of “the list of shares by the final owner” as shown in the attached Form “the list of shares by each owner.”

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

2. Determination as to Defendant D’s main defense

A. Defendant D’s assertion filed a partition of co-owned property lawsuit in this case without undergoing consultation on the division of co-owned property with Defendant D, one of the co-owners of the land of this case.

The Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the partition of co-owned property in this case is unlawful because it does not meet the litigation requirements.

(b) Division of the common property concerned shall be subject to the consultation among the co-owners, but if the agreement on the method of partition of the common property has not been reached, the division may be requested to the court; and

(Article 269(1) of the Civil Act. The fact that an agreement on the method of division of co-owned property was not reached is that the agreement on the method of division was actually reached between co-owners, but it also includes not only where agreement was not reached but also where it is evident that some co-owners were not able to respond to the agreement, or where it is missing.

Since a lawsuit for partition of a co-owned property is an inherent necessary co-litigation in which legal relationship should be determined jointly with all co-owners, even if the agreement on partition has been reached between some co-owners, the remaining co-owners shall be the parties to the lawsuit for partition of the co-owned property even if the agreement on partition has not been reached

C. In the instant case, it seems that the consultation procedure had not been actually conducted prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit regarding the method of dividing the jointly owned properties of the instant land between the Plaintiff and Defendant D.

However, for Defendant E, one of the co-owners, a lawsuit is filed by service by public notice.