1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds sold at an auction by selling the L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based land;

1. Basic facts

A. In relation to L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L- ownership, Defendant K, E, F, G

B. On April 23, 2003, Plaintiff A acquired the ownership of 3/14 equity shares in N andO, the ownership of ownership other than the above Defendants, through a public sale. Plaintiff B acquired the ownership of 3/14 equity shares in the aggregate of O and P on the same day.

C. The deceased M was killed on August 21, 2006, and the defendant C (Korean name D) succeeded to the deceased M.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the plaintiffs, co-owners of the land of this case, can claim the partition of the land of this case against the defendants, other co-owners.

B. A method of partition of co-owned property 1) In a case where the co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind with the value, the auction of the property may be ordered, and “the co-owned property shall not be divided in kind” here is not physically strict interpretation but physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009).

In addition to the following circumstances revealed by the above recognized facts and recognized evidence, namely, the location, form, and size of the forest of this case, the ratio of shares between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the use value of each part after the spot division, it is economical in accordance with the respective shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants.