The real estate listed in the list (1) (hereinafter “the instant forest”) shares A1/2, the Plaintiff B, and the Defendant shared shares 1/4, respectively, and the fact that no agreement was reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant on the method of dividing the forest of this case does not conflict between the parties, and thus, the instant forest should be divided upon the Plaintiffs’ request.

The partition of co-owned property based on a judgment is in principle based on the method of spot partition as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the shares of each co-owner. In principle, there is no dispute, each entry in the evidence No. 1 through 3, or the whole purport of the pleadings, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiffs claiming the division of the forest land of this case as stated in paragraph (1). The Defendant does not present any other opinion regarding the method of partition; ② the Defendant does not present any other opinion regarding the method of partition; ② the existence of the Plaintiff B’s housing in the Defendant’s grave, the Plaintiff’s housing in the part within the Defendant divided, and ③ the area of each divided portion also conforms to the respective shares

Therefore, the forest of this case shall be divided as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.