1. The remaining amount of D Forest land 11901m2, which is put up for an auction at the same time as inn city, after deducting the auction expenses from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The instant land was owned by more than one, but Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer based on a partial sale of 3.1/11901 shares out of the instant land on September 20, 2001. On March 7, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale as to 1910/11901 shares out of the instant land. Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation as to 9957.9/11901 shares out of the instant land on June 30, 208.

B. The location and form of the land of this case are as shown in the annexed 2 forestry map, and is lengthed to connect each point of 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the annexed 2 forestry map.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the partition of co-owned property until the closing date of the instant argument.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, can file a claim for partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, other co-owners. 2) As to this, Defendant C acquired a specific part of the land of this case, which was the "Indication Part" in the annexed 3 forestry map at the time the Plaintiff acquired the share of the land of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s co-ownership relation with the Plaintiff constitutes a sectionally owned co-ownership relation because it owned a specific part of the land of this case as to the land of this case, without making a partition registration for convenience, and it constitutes a sectionally owned co-ownership

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the facts alleged above by Defendant C solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them, and further, it seems that Defendant C had an intent to dispose of a specific part of the Plaintiff’s shares to the other co-owners at the time of acquiring shares. Thus, the above assertion by

B. Co-owned property partition