2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff and the sperm co-owner may file a claim with the court for the division of the instant forest land against the Defendants, who are other co-owners (the Defendants), as co-owners (Article 269(1) of the Civil Act). B. We examine the method of division.

1) The court may order an auction of the article jointly owned when the value thereof is likely to be reduced substantially if the division of the article jointly owned is not possible in kind or in kind, or if it is impossible to divide the article in kind, or if the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). The case where the article cannot be divided in kind includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

2) Considering the overall circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the number of co-owners of each real estate listed in the separate real estate list Nos. 2 and conflict of interests among co-owners, it is considerably difficult to divide each real estate listed in the separate real estate list No. 2 into investment in kind. If each real estate listed in the separate real estate list No. 2 is divided in kind, the value thereof would be significantly reduced

Determination conforms to the common sense.

3) Therefore, it is appropriate to determine that the method of distributing each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list to the Plaintiff, the sperm and the Defendants according to their respective shares is appropriate, after deducting the auction cost from each of the sale proceeds.

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