A. The Plaintiff shares the 51,240/54,942 square meters of forest E in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant forest”) in proportion to 1,653/54,942, Defendant B’s 396/54,942, Defendant C and Defendant D, respectively.

B. There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition of the instant forest, and no agreement on the method of partition of the said forest has been reached until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as the co-owner of the instant forest land, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant forest land, may file a claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, for the partition of the instant forest land jointly owned pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In principle, the partition of co-owned property cannot be divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to each co-owner's share. However, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct the partition in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property, and it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to conduct the partition in kind if the value might be reduced substantially if the division is made in kind." Even if the co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's share is divided in kind, it includes cases where the value of the part to be owned by the division in kind might be significantly reduced than the share value before the division (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002).