1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the forest land AT 13,693 square meters to an auction in Seosan-si, Chungcheongnamnam-si;

1. The Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property and the Defendants are co-owners sharing 13,693 square meters of AT Forest and AT forest and 13,693 square meters (hereinafter “instant real property”) in proportion to co-ownership shares listed in the attached co-ownership shares. The fact that no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the instant real property before the conclusion of the pleadings does not conflict between the parties, or that the agreement on the method of partition of the instant real property was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 2. Thus, the Plaintiff

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

(a) In the case of dividing the article jointly owned by a trial, in principle, by dividing it in kind, or by dividing it in kind or by dividing it in kind, if the value thereof is apprehended to be significantly reduced, the auction of the article may be ordered;

In this context, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, current use, value of use after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the real estate of this case is a natural green area, and Article 20 of the Urban Planning Ordinance of Seosan-si stipulates the division restriction area as not less than 200m2 in the case of a natural green area. If the real estate of this case is divided in kind into the real estate of this case, it is short of the minimum division area under the Urban Planning Ordinance

In addition, some defendants oppose the division of the real estate of this case, and do not present any opinion about the division method, and the plaintiff's shares are.