A. The forest land listed in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants at each relevant share ratio indicated in the separate sheet of shares.

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

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff and the Defendants sharing the forest of this case did not reach an agreement on the method of division, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may request the Defendants, the other co-owners, to divide the forest of this case.

Furthermore, it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the forest of this case in kind, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the Health Team and the evidence as follows: (i) it is deemed difficult for the co-owner to draw a reasonable division plan to satisfy all the co-owners of the instant co-ownership; (ii) if the forest of this case is divided in kind, some co-owners are not limited to the area subject to the sole ownership, and there is difficulty in using the forest of this case; and (iii) the value of the portion to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the share value owned before the division; (iv) some of the Defendants were not present on the date for pleading of this case; and (v) Defendant F and L who were present on the date for pleading of this case were not present on the date for pleading of this case; and (v) Defendant F and L wishing to divide the forest of this case.

Therefore, it would be the most equitable and reasonable way to sell the forest land of this case to auction and distribute the price according to the respective shares ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants.

3. If so, the instant forest land is to be sold by auction or divided, but the costs of lawsuit are to be borne by each party.