A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each share in the separate sheet on the forest of this case as stated in the separate sheet on public land in the separate sheet.

B. The agreement prohibiting the division of the instant forest land does not exist, and as of the closing date of the pleadings of the instant case, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of division of the instant forest land was not reached.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the forest of this case, pursuant to the main text of Article 268(1) and Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

As to the method of division, there is no agreement on the method of division between the Plaintiff and the Defendants; Defendant F wanted to divide the auction without consent to the division in kind; this Court did not raise any objection against the recommendation to divide the auction on October 16, 2020; in full view of the shape of the forest of this case and the present utilization status, legal relationship, etc. of the forest of this case, it is difficult to divide the forest of this case in kind or the value of the forest of this case may be significantly reduced due to the division in kind.

Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the price by auction.

3. The decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the forest land of this case in the manner of payment by auction.