A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners of forest E, 16,095 square meters of forests and fields E (hereinafter “the instant forest”), and the shares of the Plaintiff and Defendant D are 1/4 each, and the shares of Defendant C are 2/4.

B. Until the closing date of the instant argument, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division method of the instant forest. There is no division prohibition agreement regarding the instant forest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

(b) If the co-owned property is divided by a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, by dividing it in kind, or in kind, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value thereof is apprehended to decrease remarkably, an auction of the co-owned property may be ordered to be paid in installments;

Here, the requirement includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide the property in kind, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of use after the division, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297 Decided December 10, 2015). Examining the instant case, first of all, the forest of this case appears to be difficult to find an adequate method of in-kind division, which accords with the share ratio of co-owners in the form of a three-dimensional form and satisfies the economic satisfaction without a reduction in value. As such, in the Plaintiff’s claim for the auction division of the forest of this case as the instant lawsuit, the Defendants did not appear on the date of pleading without stating any opinion by the date of closing argument of this case, and the Defendants did not appear on the date of pleading.