1. The plaintiff shall sell the 1,008 square meters of D forest in Sung-si to auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the share of 1/3 shares of D forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) at each of the 1/3 shares.

B. There was no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant land, and there was no agreement on the partition method of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim the partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner, or even if it is possible in form, if the value thereof might be reduced remarkably, the auction of the co-owned property may be ordered, and if the price thereof might be reduced remarkably, the price may be divided in kind. However, in the payment division, the requirement that "it may not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but physically, it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the partition, etc.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 Decided April 12, 2002, etc.). The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff, supra, acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted.