A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants owned 74975 square meters of K forest in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) at the ratio indicated in the separate sheet “ratio” as indicated in the separate sheet.

In particular, Defendant J succeeded to L on June 12, 2014 and succeeded to Defendant J, Nonparty M, and N, the spouse, due to the death of Nonparty J on June 12, 2014. However, Defendant J’s acceptance of the declaration of qualified acceptance (U.S. Family Court Decision 2014J Decision 2959), M and N’s acceptance of the declaration of renunciation of inheritance (U.S. Family Court Decision 2014J Decision 2960), and Defendant J’s sole inheritance of L).

There is no partition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim for partition of co-owned property, method of partition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant land. As the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the instant land.

B. Although it is not impossible to divide the instant land in kind, both the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not submit an opinion on the method of in-kind division and did not file an application for appraisal, etc. for division, as well as the Defendants did not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim for auction division. Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the instant land by means of auction division.

3. In conclusion, the land of this case is put to an auction and the proceeds from the sale are distributed in proportion to the shares of the plaintiff and the defendants, but the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition as per Disposition.