1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the price by selling the F forest land 16,909 square meters in Incheon Strengthening-gun for auction.

1. The land of this case, which was recognized, is owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to paragraph (1) of this case.

The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to divide the instant real estate, but did not reach an agreement, filed the instant lawsuit.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the co-owned property partition claim, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim the partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, another co-owner.

B. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is apprehended to substantially decrease the value thereof, the auction of the property may be ordered to divide it in kind. Here, the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the land of this case, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the land of this case, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the method of dividing the price according to the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants after the land was sold by auction is judged to be a fair and reasonable method.

3. Conclusion: (a) the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price that the instant land was sold to an auction shall be the share ratio to the Plaintiff and the Defendants respectively.