1. The remaining amount obtained by deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale by selling the K Forest at an auction with the area of 7,636 square meters in Gu/Si/Gu.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants shared with regard to K forest land 7,636 square meters (hereinafter "the forest of this case") in the Gu-U.S. Si, Gu-si, as to the co-ownership of each share in the separate sheet.

A co-owner may demand a partition of the article jointly owned (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act), and if the agreement on the method of partition of the article jointly owned is not reached, the co-owner may demand a partition to the court, and if it is impossible to divide the article in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the partition, the court may order the auction of the article.

(Article 269 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the forest of this case.

2. In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to each co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably as a result thereof, it shall be made by the method of partition, such as an auction of the co-owned property,

The requirement of "shall not be divided in kind" in the payment for sale does not physically strictly interpret it, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, commercial value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da30603 delivered on January 19, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). The following circumstances, namely, co-owners of the forest of this case have reached a total of 10 persons, and there is no close relationship between family members, etc., and the expected profits through the forest of this case are different.