1. The remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale shall be attached to the auction sale of T forest land 3,505 square meters at the time of strike; and

In fact, the Plaintiff and the Defendants share 3,505 square meters of T forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) in their respective shares in the list of co-owners listed in the attached Table.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the above fact-finding of the claim for partition of co-ownership, the plaintiff may claim for partition of the co-owned property against the defendants, who are other co-owners of the land of this case.

Accordingly, Defendant F asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are in co-ownership relationship with the sectionally owned co-ownership after specifying a part of the instant land.

The mere fact that the evidence submitted by Defendant F, the evidence, or part of the land of this case is used as the graves of the Defendants, is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of sectional ownership agreements among co-owners of the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant F is without merit.

In addition, Defendant G, I, P, and Q cannot respond to the division of co-owned properties until the relocation of graves on the ground of the instant land has been achieved.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff illegally opened a grave, the division of the jointly owned property cannot be complied with.

The co-owners of the article can claim the partition of the article jointly owned unless the agreement on the method of partition is reached (Article 268 and 269 of the Civil Act). Thus, unless the co-owners agree on the prohibition of partition, the above circumstance alone asserted by the Defendants cannot oppose the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of the article jointly owned.

Therefore, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

If a co-owned property is divided by one trial for the method of partition, it shall be possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner.