The Gyeonggi-do forest E- 1097 square meters shall be put to an auction and the auction expenses shall be deducted from the proceeds of the sale.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in the evidence No. 1 of the claim for partition of the jointly-owned property, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared co-ownership share in the proportion of co-ownership indicated in the separate sheet, and it can be recognized that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the land of this case until the closing date of pleadings. Thus, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, can file a co-ownership claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

2. The partition of co-owned property, based on the decision on the method of partition of co-owned property, shall be made by the method of in-kind partition, in principle, insofar as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in kind or if the price might be reduced remarkably as a result, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered, and if it is possible in form, the price shall not be divided in kind, but it shall not be physically strict interpretation, and it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value, etc. of the co-owned property in light of the nature, location, and use value after the

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002, etc.). In this case, the following circumstances revealed in the statement No. 2 of this case, including the entire purport of pleadings, are difficult to define the boundary of partition, or the value of the land in this case is expected to be significantly reduced due to the shape of the divided land, and Defendant B wishes to divide the land in this case with the part attached to the Gan-gun of Gyeonggi-gun, one owned by himself, but the Plaintiff opposed to this, while maintaining the utility value by shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.