1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling 1,322m2 square meters for the F forest land in Yong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 83/661 square meters of F forest land in Yong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in proportion to each of the 165/10, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Plaintiff 661, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim for partition of the instant real estate with the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property can be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owners divide the co-owned property through a trial due to the failure to reach agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the price can be reduced remarkably. The auction of the property can be ordered only when the value might be reduced remarkably.

As seen earlier, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the instant real estate was not reached until the closing date of the argument. In light of the respective entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the fact-finding results on the Young-gun of the court, the minimum partitioned area of the forest located in Young-gun, which can be known in view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the size of the instant real estate, and the value of the instant real estate, etc., it is unclear whether it is possible to divide the instant real estate in kind, and even if it is possible to divide,

Therefore, the instant real estate is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.