A. 1) The fact of recognition is 486,744 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) of forest E-based, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant forest”).

) The Plaintiff shares 410,711/486,744 shares, Defendant A’s 16,529/486,74 shares, Defendant B’s 9,917/486,74 shares, Defendant C’s 33,058/486,74 shares, Defendant D’s 16,529/486,744 shares, and Defendant D’s 16,529/486,74 shares. 2) The agreement on the method of dividing the forest of this case is practically impossible between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, it is impossible to consult on the method of division between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, a co-owner of the instant forest. Thus, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim the division of the instant forest against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

2. In light of various circumstances, the method of partition of co-owned forest in this case is not currently used for specific purposes, and is left alone without being used for specific purposes; Defendant B and C have part wishing to be divided in kind among the forest in this case, but the other co-owners do not consent thereto; the Plaintiff or Defendant A want the auction or division of the forest in this case; and in light of various circumstances, it is reasonable to divide the forest in this case by the method as stipulated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.