1. The remainder of D Forest land 2,66 m2 and 2,66 m2 in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, which remains after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each share of 1/3 of the instant real estate on March 21, 2019 with respect to D forest land 2,66 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the time when the co-owned property partition claim was created, and the Plaintiff acquired one-third share of the instant real estate by public sale on March 21, 2019, and filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that the Defendants and the instant real estate did not reach agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate with the Defendants, is recognized according to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, respectively.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff, co-owner of the real estate of this case, can claim the division against the defendants based on co-ownership right.

2. As a matter of principle, the partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property is to be made in kind as far as a rational partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. If it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if it is possible to divide in kind, the auction of the property can be ordered only when the value thereof might be reduced remarkably. The above requirement does not physically strict interpretation, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, the situation of its use, and the use value after the partition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff wishes to divide the instant real estate in kind on the grounds that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to divide the instant real estate in kind on the grounds of the survey, the procedure of subdivision, and the issue of the ratio of opinion on the location of the land to be allocated after subdivision; and (b) the Defendants wish to take other disposal methods, such as the sale of the real estate to a third party, while recognizing that it is difficult for the Defendants to divide the instant real estate in kind. As such, the instant real estate could not be divided in kind or if it is divided in kind, the value would be significantly reduced if it