1. The amount remaining after 64,661 square meters of forest Fran-gun, Jeonju-gun, North Korea are put up for an auction and the auction expenses are deducted from the proceeds thereof;

The forest land indicated in the text of this case (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) was jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Dong G, but it was very different from the value of standing timber corresponding to the location of the forest land according to the location of 30 years or more on the other areas, while the end part of the forest of this case was connected with nearby agriculture and the remainder of the Defendants, and thus, the agreement on the method of division between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was not reached, and the forest of this case was formed on the way of division, and its gradient is left behind and right behind, and its gradient is not equal in accordance with the direction. The forest of this case is complicated without the dynamic transfer type. The forest of this case is complicated in the slope area and the pelus form of the forest of this case, and on the other areas, the value of standing timber corresponding to the location of the forest of this case is considerably different. The remaining part of the forest of this case upon division into neighboring agriculture is not disputed between the parties, or the purport of the entire pleading can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of each evidence Gap.

According to the above facts, the forest land of this case is divided upon the plaintiff's request for division, and the value of the forest land of this case is likely to be significantly reduced due to the spot division, so the auction proceeds are sold at auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the sale proceeds is distributed to the plaintiff and the

The defendants dispute that the forest of this case and the forest of this case are owned by the plaintiff and the deceased G's father without disposing of them in the inheritance to the plaintiff and the deceased G, and that the plaintiff and the deceased H should share them for the purpose of management of the mountain, so that they should obtain such purport. However, even if the above assertion by the family defendants is acknowledged as they are, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the existence of an agreement prohibiting division among co-owners, they can file a claim for division regardless of the purport of the deceased, and therefore, there is no reason to believe

In addition, the Defendants are divided once by the Plaintiff.