1. The E forest land E shall be put up for an auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the price shall be attached.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants, in the form of co-owned property partition claim, share the land E forest land E- 772 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to each of the co-owned shares listed in the separate sheet, and among them, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant land.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim a partition of the instant land against the Defendants, other co-owners.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The method of partition of co-owned property shall be considered to have been recognized under paragraph (1) and overall purport of pleadings;

The Plaintiff sought an auction division as to the instant land, and the Defendants did not raise any specific objection against the auction division.

In the partition of co-owned property, in principle, the division in kind has not been claimed in kind among co-owners of the land of this case, and no other reasonable method of division in kind is found.

In light of the nature, location, area of the instant land, the share ratio of co-owners, and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant land in kind, and thus, it is the most fair and reasonable method to choose an auction division.

Therefore, the land of this case is sold to the plaintiff and the defendants according to the ratio of each of the co-ownership list, which was put up for auction and deducted the auction cost from the price.

3. In conclusion, the land of this case is divided as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.