1. The remaining amount after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds by selling the forest 8,840 square meters in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do;

1. On June 19, 2018, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) were awarded a bid for each of the shares of 593.28/10 of the 8840 square meters of the Gyeonggi-do Amyeong-gunY Forest Land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant forest”) in the auction proceedings conducted with the District Court of the Jung-gu District on the part of June 19, 2018.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared the instant forest land in proportion to their respective co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet, and there was no special agreement prohibiting division regarding the instant forest land, and no agreement was concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the instant forest land.

According to Article 22 of the Ordinance on the Gun Planning of Pyeongtaek-gun where the instant forest is located, where land is partitioned without obtaining permission, authorization, etc. under the relevant statutes, the green area shall be at least 200 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the plaintiffs, co-owners of the forest of this case, and the defendants did not reach agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the plaintiffs can file a claim against the defendants, other co-owners, for the partition of the forest of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

As to this, Defendant E, F,O, K, C, S, W, Q, etc. have been classified and purchased by specifying some of the forest land of this case, it is argued that there is a sectionally owned co-ownership relation. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion is without merit.

In addition, Defendant E, F, C, G, J, K, K, Q, Q, T, W, M, and R, a real estate auction company, filed a claim for partition of co-owned property in collusion with Defendant I after winning the instant forest at the intermittent value. This constitutes a juristic act contrary to the principles of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights, and the social order under Article 103 of the Civil Code, and is null and void.