1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds of the sale by selling the 9,896 square meters of the I Forest in Ansan-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, Defendant G, and H own 1/4 shares, and Defendant B, C, D, E, and F own each share of 1/20 shares, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff sent each content certification to the Defendants on December 31, 2014 and June 18, 2015 for the division of the instant forest. However, the agreement on the division was not concluded.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Co-owners who have created the right to partition of co-owned property may claim partition of the co-owned property, and if the agreement as to the method of partition of the co-owned property has not been reached, the court may request

(Article 268 and Article 269 of the Civil Act). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners of the forest of this case and did not reach agreement on the division. Thus, the Plaintiff may claim the division of the forest of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property by a judgment on the method of partition shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to each co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might considerably decline due to such possible partition, the court may order the auction of the co-owned property to divide the co-owned property by the so-called price division.

(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act. The requirement that “shall not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the article jointly owned in question in light of the nature, location, and use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002, etc.). According to the facts recognized and the purport of the entire pleadings, the area of the forest of this case is 9,896 square meters and co-owners.