1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling 8,168 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si forest land at auction.

1. Basic facts

A. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Intervenor shared their respective shares as shown in the attached Table.

B. There is no special agreement between the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the participating parties to not divide the forest of this case, and there was no agreement on the method of division, and there was no agreement on the method of division.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. According to the facts found in the establishment of the right to share the forest of this case, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the forest of this case, may file a claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, and the Intervenor for the partition of the forest of this case pursuant to Article 269(1)

3. If, through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, the co-owned property is divided in kind, in principle, or in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or in kind, or if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably, an auction of the co-owned property may be ordered to be paid in installments;

Here, the requirement includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the property in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of use after the division, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297 Decided December 10, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 201). In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to divide the instant land into the method of payment by auction, since it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it into the instant land in kind, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in health room, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2-5, and Eul’s evidence No.

① Upon filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed to divide the instant forest in kind.

As a result, the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs.