A. The Plaintiff shares 18,050/54,149, Defendant A, the heir of the network J, Defendant B, F, G, and H respectively, 3,610/54/54,149, and Defendant C, the heir of the networkJ, shares of 10,830/379, 043, Defendant D, and E, each of which is 7,20/379,043 shares of 7,20/379,043 shares of the deceasedJ.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant forest.

[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, the Plaintiff, one of co-owners, based on his co-ownership share, may request the Defendants to divide the forest of this case.

B. The method of partition of an article jointly owned by a trial is, in principle, a method of partition in kind. Even if it is impossible or possible in kind, if the price of the article jointly owned is likely to decrease substantially, the method of partition should be followed by the so-called method of payment by ordering the auction of the article jointly owned, and the requirement that "it cannot be divided in kind" as the premise of the price division should not be strictly interpreted in physical sense, but should include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature of the article jointly owned, location or area, the situation of use, and the use value after the partition.

In addition, the phrase "where the value of the portion is likely to be reduced significantly if it is divided in kind" also includes cases where the value of the portion to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the share before the division, even if the co-owner's person is a co-owner.

C. However, the Korea Land Information Corporation notified the fact that the instant forest is impossible to conduct a survey due to the depression of trees, and unlike the Plaintiff, the economic value of the divided land.