1. The remainder of the sale price calculated by selling the 22,413 square meters of forest land D in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do and deducting the auction cost from the sale price.

1. Basic facts

A. The land of this case is co-owned land owned by the Plaintiff 1/2 and the Defendant 1/2 of which shares are owned by 22,413 square meters in D Forest land, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. As to the instant land, there was no division agreement between the parties by the date of the closing of the instant argument, and there was no division prohibition agreement.

[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 acknowledged facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of the instant forest land with the Defendant, who is another co-owner pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property according to a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value would be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value after the partition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). In light of the following: (a) health class; (b) the Plaintiff did not wish to divide the land in kind; (c) the Defendant did not submit a specific written response to the Plaintiff’s claim; and (d) there was no specific and specific criteria to divide the land in kind; (b) the land in this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate for co-owners to fairly divide the land in question while maintaining utility value; and (c) the land in this case was put to an auction to co-ownership.