1. The amount remaining after the sale price is deducted from the sale price by selling G forest land 4,327 square meters at Jeju-si;

1. Basic facts

A. At Jeju, G forest 4,327 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) are jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants according to their respective shares indicated in the attached Table of co-ownership.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on subdivision of the instant land, and there was no agreement on subdivision prohibition.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may file a partition claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

3. Method of partition.

A. The method of partition of co-owned property by trial is, in principle, in kind, in which a reasonable partition can be made according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, and if the price is likely to be significantly reduced if it is difficult to do so, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it is impossible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

In light of the above legal principles, there are not less than six co-owners of the land of this case, and the service to Defendant C was made by means of service by public notice, so it is difficult to reach any agreement on the method of dividing the land of this case into kind between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Defendant B and F expressed their opinions that they consent to the auction division, Defendant D did not give any reply despite being served with the complaint of this case, and Defendant E asserts the spot-sale division.