1. The plaintiff shall sell G forest land 38,479m2 to an auction at Embju and deduct the auction cost from the auction price.

1. In full view of the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared share of 38,479 square meters of G forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”). The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have any agreement prohibiting the division of the instant forest land, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant forest land as of the closing date of the pleadings.

2. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, the co-owner of the instant forest, and the Defendants, did not reach agreement as to the method of partition of co-owned property. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of the instant forest land pursuant to the main text of Article 268(1) and Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

3. In cases of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, if the co-owned property is divided in kind, with the intention of dividing it in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the value thereof may be reduced remarkably, the auction of the property may be ordered;

The requirement does not physically strictly interpret it in kind, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind, and it also includes cases where the value of the article to be owned by the owner might be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind even if it is done by the owner, even if it is done by the owner, if the value of the article to be owned by the owner alone might be significantly reduced compared to the share value before the division.

(1) The Korea Electric Power Corporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of pleadings, the Korea Electric Power Corporation shall be deemed to have