1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction cost from the proceeds by attaching the forest land of 1,698 square meters to the auction at the Gangseo-gun, Seowon-gun.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff 1,698m2 (hereinafter "the forest of this case") is jointly owned by the plaintiff 1,038/1,698, defendant 2, defendant 30/1,698, defendant B30/1,698, and defendant 330/1,698. The division of the forest of this case can be acknowledged as having not been agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff, co-owner, can file a co-owned property partition claim against the defendants pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

The method of partition of co-owned property is examined as to the method of partition, and the partition of co-owned property by trial may be divided in kind, in principle, as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, or if the value might be significantly reduced if it is difficult to divide in kind, an auction may be ordered. In the payment division, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, the situation of its use, and the use value after the division

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). The forest of this case is located on the right side of the forest of this case, namely, under the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the forest of this case is located on the right side of the forest of this case. Although the distance from the forest of this case is very important, it is difficult to divide the distance from the forest of this case, but the forest of this case is dissolved, and the plaintiff and the defendants did not present any reasonable plan to divide other than the price by auction. Thus, the forest of this case is the most reasonable method to divide the price through auction.

If so, the forest of this case is attached to the auction and proceeds therefrom.