1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds by selling the forest E in Chang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Of the land of this case, the Plaintiff owned 1/2 shares, Defendant B’s shares 11,651.5/66,275 shares, Defendant C and D own shares of 10,743/6,275 shares, respectively, and the fact that the agreement on the method of partition of the land between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was not concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is not in dispute between the parties. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the land of this case.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in-kind or possible in-kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to the auction of the co-owned property, the so-called price division shall be made by ordering the auction of the co-owned property and by dividing the price. However, in the price division, the requirement that "it may not be divided in-kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in-kind division in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, use value after the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). C.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1, namely, ① the current status of possession and use of the land of this case, are not specifically revealed, ② the Plaintiff asserts that the value of the land of this case may be significantly reduced due to division as a preserved mountainous district, ② the Defendants assert that the land of this case is restricted as development and difficult to divide in kind, ③ the Defendants claim that the land of this case is difficult to divide in kind, ③ the successful bid price may be reduced considerably if the land of this case is put to auction in the preservation area where there is no fact of transaction.