1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the 2,418 square meters of forest land in Suwon-si;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 shares of 2,418 square meters of forests and fields C in Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the claim for partition of co-owned property

A. Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If a consultation on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. If it is impossible to divide the property in kind or the value of the property is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the property (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, co-owners, as co-owners, may file a claim for partition against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269 of the

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property according to the judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner; however, the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, and use value after the partition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002). Each of the above facts and evidence Nos. 4 and 5, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings, filed an application for permission to engage in the development of the land of this case with the head of the Suwon-si District District Office according to the method of spot-type division presented by the Defendant. However, the head of the Suwon District Office applied for permission to engage in the development of the land of this case on October 18, 2016.