A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the forest land indicated in the disposition (hereinafter in this case’s forest land) in the same proportion as the shares of co-owners and co-ownership in the annexed sheet.

B. The Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant forest, sought the division of the said forest. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division.

C. The Plaintiff sought the method of partition of co-owned property by sharing the part on the ship (A) in the attached Form No. 1, and the part (B) in the ship.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of the request for measurement and appraisal to the branch offices of the National Land Information Corporation in this court, the significant facts in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff, as co-owner of the land of this case, can file a partition claim against the defendants, who are other co-owners. As seen earlier, since the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement as to partition of co-owned property, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking resolution of co-ownership relation is with merit.

B. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition is in principle by the method of in-kind partition as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to each co-owner’s share. In light of the location, shape, and size of the forest of this case, the share ratio of the parties concerned, most Defendants did not dispute over the method of partition of co-owned property desired by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to divide the forest of this case in kind according to the method like the order

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.