1. As to the land size of 17,107 square meters in Kimpo-si, the annexed Table 1 appraisal marks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 through 16, and 1.

1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (the number of branch numbers is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the right to partition of co-owned property, the plaintiff F, E, D, C, B, H's 1/14 shares, the plaintiff's 4/14 shares, the plaintiff's 4/26 shares, the plaintiff J 1/26 shares, and the defendant's 4/26 shares, and the facts that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case since the agreement on partition of co-owned property between the plaintiffs and the defendant was not reached, the plaintiffs, co-owner of the forest in this case, can file a claim for partition of the forest in this case with the defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to Article 269 (1) of the Civil Act.

2. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property may be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. The court may order auction of the property only when the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced if it is unable to divide it in kind or if it is divided 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, and then the method of partition shall be determined by the ratio of shares of the co-owner according to the share of each co-owner at the discretion of the court, rather than by the method requested by the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, Jul. 22, 2004).