공유물분할
1. Aboard (A) which connects each point in the annexed Form 1-14, 26, 25, 24, 23, and 1 among the forests and fields listed in the annexed Form 1 in sequence.
1. The facts of recognition are that the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/7 shares of the forest land listed in the annexed sheet 1 (hereinafter “the forest of this case”). The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division method of the forest of this case by the closing date of pleadings of this case. The fact that there is no partition prohibition agreement on the forest of this case does not conflict between the parties, or that there is no dispute between the parties, or that it is acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the request for surveying appraisal on the branch
2. According to the above facts established as a co-owner of the instant forest land, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant forest land, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.
In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner
In this case, the plaintiff, defendant B, D, E, and F agreed to divide the forest of this case in kind in the same manner as described in Paragraph 1 of this case, and the rest of the defendants did not present any opinion.
Furthermore, in light of the location, area, current status, etc. of the forest of this case, it is deemed the most reasonable method to divide in kind, such as the disposition No. 1.
3. In conclusion, this case’s forest land is divided as per Disposition No. 1 and it is so decided as per Disposition.