A. The Plaintiff 3/18, Defendant B, C, and D respectively, and Defendant E-9/18 shares are jointly owned by the Plaintiff 3/18, Defendant B, C, and Defendant E-18, respectively.

B. As to the instant land, there was no division agreement between the parties by the date of the closing of the instant argument, and there was no division prohibition agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim for partition of the instant forest land with the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. As a matter of principle, the method of partition of co-owned property according to a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the co-owner's share. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value would be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that "it is not possible to divide in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value after the partition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). Considering the following circumstances: (a) the Health Center and Defendant E agree to the division by auction in this case; (b) the remaining Defendants do not give any answer to the Plaintiff’s request; and (c) each co-owner’s land is small in the size of the area to be distributed when the land is divided in kind as a answer; and (d) the actual value of the land as a answer is lost, it is difficult to divide the land of this case into co-owners, while maintaining its utility value.