A. Attached appraisal links 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7 in order to connect each point.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each share of 3,130 square meters of O forest in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Until the closing date of the instant argument, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[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 land of this case, may claim the partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. Co-owned property partition method 1) Division of co-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall in principle divide it in kind. The court may issue an order for auction of the property only when the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced if the co-owned property is divided in kind or in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several items in kind at the share of each co-owner. The method of division is not the way requested by the parties, but it is reasonable division according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, Jul. 22, 2004). The evidence adopted by the 2004Da10183, Jul. 22, 2004).