A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant real estate at the ratio of 1/3.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on subdivision of the instant real estate, and there was no agreement on subdivision prohibition.

[Grounds for Recognition]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the instant real estate pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property by an erroneous judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is apprehended that the value might be reduced remarkably, an auction may be ordered to divide in kind. In the payment, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in consideration of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of co-owner's share.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not submit a copy of the instant complaint, but did not present any opinion by the date of the closing of argument. In order to divide the instant real estate in kind, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are required to be able to make a reasonable partition according to their respective shares with materials that can estimate the location and economic value of the instant forest, such as the shape thereof and surrounding land and road conditions. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are unable to find a reasonable method of dividing the instant real estate in kind without submitting the materials that can compute the value as above, and the number of co-owners, their shares, and the size of the division at the time of the division of the said real estate in kind.