A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party F, G, and the Defendants shared the land of 117 square meters in forest E with the wife population in Young-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The ratio of shares is as stated in the separate shares of co-owner and co-ownership.

B. Until the closing date of the instant argument, co-owners did not hold a consultation on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole argument

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is a co-owner of the instant real estate, and may file a claim for partition against other co-owners pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act. Since co-owners did not reach agreement on the method of partition by the date of closing argument of the instant case, they may file a claim for partition of the co-owned property with the court pursuant to Article 269(

In light of the current state, location, area, use status, number of co-owners, etc. of the real estate of this case known through the records and pleadings regarding the method of division, it is reasonable to distribute the remaining price to co-owners in proportion to their share of shares of co-owners except expenses to be sold to auction the real estate of this case.

3. In conclusion, the division of the instant real estate, which is jointly owned, is determined as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.