1. The remaining amount which is the 297,124 square meters of I forest land at the time of a grace shall be put to an auction and the auction expenses shall be deducted from the price.

1. Co-owned property partition claim

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 297,124m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, as indicated in the text of the disposition, jointly owned the same as co-ownership shares.

There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding the instant land, and no agreement on division has been reached until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1, 2, 4 and Eul 1, 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the instant land, which is jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. In cases 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 the value thereof is apprehended to be significantly reduced, an auction of the property may be ordered, and the requirement of “undivided in kind” here includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation, use value, etc. of the jointly-owned property in kind, not physically strict interpretation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). We examine the following circumstances, which can be seen through the pleadings of the instant case. The land division proposed by the Plaintiff is unilaterally favorable to the Plaintiff, only the part that the Plaintiff wants to own is adjacent to the existing development area. The Defendants oppose the request for surveying and appraisal regarding the other land division, but the survey becomes impossible due to technical problems. The Defendants do not present any opinion on the division, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendants do not.