1. AH forest 28,760 square meters in the following order: AH forest 28,760 square meters and attached appraisal maps are linked in order to each point of 5,6,7,35,34, and 5.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/10 of the Plaintiff’s forest land AH 28,760 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to the total of 9/10, and the Defendants shared the same at each ratio. The fact that there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the instant land until the date of closing the argument in the instant case, or that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the instant land, and it is acknowledged by the

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the land of this case.

2. In a case where the co-owners divide the co-owned property in kind by a trial because there is no agreement as to the division of co-owned property in kind, the court shall, in principle, divide the co-owned property in kind. The court may order the auction of the goods only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when the value might be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall make a judgment to divide the co-owned property in kind into several goods according to the ratio of shares of co-owners and to recognize the private ownership of each co-owner for the divided goods.

(2) In light of the evidence cited earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the part of the instant land is used for the protection and management of graves as the dissolution of a clan to which the Defendants and the Defendants belong. The Plaintiff’s proposal in the purport of the purport of the claim is to divide the land of the area proportional to the Plaintiff’s co-ownership among the land in which the graves are not located, which is the most reasonable way in the method and form of division, and the Defendants did not raise any specific objection thereto.