1. The remainder which remains after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale by selling 3,315 square meters of Jin-si, Taecheon-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the J-based J-based land 3,315 square meters (hereinafter “instant J land”), the Plaintiff shares 8360/1920 shares, Defendant Tae Tae-si’s 240/9600 shares, Defendant E’s 8360/1920 shares, and Defendant F shares 100/960 shares.

B. As regards the K forest 27,540 square meters (hereinafter “instant K land”), the Plaintiff shares 8245/1920 shares, Defendant Thai-si’s 240/9600 shares, Defendant E’s 8245/1920 shares, Defendant G’s 115/9600 shares, and Defendant H Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant H”) share 100/960 shares.

C. There was no agreement among co-owners on the divided method of the J-Land and K-Land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land J and K in this case, can file a claim for partition of each land against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

B. In principle, division of co-owned property in kind cannot be divided in kind as far as the co-owner can make a rational partition according to his/her share. However, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, use after the division, use value, etc. of the co-owned property, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct the division in kind if the division is made in kind." Even if a co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owned share might cause a decrease in the value of the part to be owned independently (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).2), the evidence and the purport of the whole pleading are considered as follows: