1. The plaintiff 40.40.40.40.00 m2, c forest land 506 m2 and the remaining money after deducting the auction expenses from the price.

1. As to the forest land listed in Paragraph (1) of the order of the claim for partition of the jointly owned property (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”), the fact that each ownership transfer registration is completed with respect to share 40/353 in the Plaintiff’s name, relation to share 60/353 in the Defendant A’s name, and relation to share 253/353 in the Defendant’s name, may be recognized by the entry in evidence A.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the forest of this case under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the arguments of this case, it is reasonable to view that the forest of this case can not be divided in kind or that the value of the forest of this case might be significantly reduced due to the spot-sale, because the forest of this case can not be divided in kind in accordance with the respective shares of the plaintiff and the defendants, and that the forest of this case can be divided in kind according to the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the area to be acquired after the division is narrow, and the plaintiff and the defendants might have less economic usefulness for the plaintiff and the defendants, and the defendant Eul asserted that the plaintiff's share would be to be purchased at an appropriate price, but the specific purchase price and financing method are not presented. However, it is reasonable to view that the forest of this case can not be divided in kind in accordance with the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants, or that the forest of this case can be divided in kind due to the spot-sale or other appropriate division method, and therefore, it would be fair and reasonable to divide the price according to each share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.

3. The conclusion is that the division of the forest of this case shall be conducted at auction and the remaining amount after deducting the auction cost from the price shall be distributed according to the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.