1. The remainder of the sale price calculated by selling 686,678 square meters of forest Jin-gun, Hongsung-gun and deducting the auction cost from the sale price;

1. Basic facts

A. As to the 686,678m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff shares 2/17 shares, and the Defendants shares each of the same shares as the shares in the separate sheet of co-ownership.

B. Meanwhile, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case, and there was no agreement on the method of partition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the plaintiff, as co-owner of the land of this case, may file a partition claim against the defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act, and the agreement on the method of partition was not reached. Thus, the plaintiff may file a partition claim with the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the

B. In principle, division of co-owned property in kind cannot be divided in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to each co-owner's share. However, the requirement 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, situation of use, use after the division, use value, etc. of the co-owned property (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). 2) In accordance with the above legal principle, the following circumstances revealed by health stand, the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings are revealed. In other words, the co-owner of the land of this case is up to 61 persons, and further, the method of partition of co-owned property as desired by both the plaintiff and the defendants are different.