A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner of shares of 99174/2181800 square meters of W forest 21,818 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”). The Defendants shared the instant forest according to the ratio of shares indicated in the separate sheet.

B. The Defendants, other than the Plaintiff, did not agree on the method of dividing the pertinent forest land into common property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may seek a partition of the forest of this case against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, we examine the method of division. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendants as to the forest of this case and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-3 and the whole pleadings. In other words, it is difficult to prepare a plan for division to adjust the interests of co-owners because the co-owners of the forest of this case are many 21 persons, and it is difficult to prepare a plan for division. ② As to the shares of the Defendant P, the provisional registration for the right to claim ownership transfer has been completed, the right to claim ownership transfer has been established, the shares of Defendant E and F are seized, ③ the Plaintiff asserts the division as described in the Disposition No. 1, and the defendant L consented to the division. The defendant C, J, N,O, U is opposed to the partition of co-owned property, and the remaining Defendants do not present any opinion. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to divide the forest of this case as described in the Disposition No. 1.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.