1. Of the 1,885 square meters of G forest land in Northern-gu, Pohang-gu, Pohang-si;

(a) The attached sheet No. 1, 13, 22, 11, 12, and 1 are indicated in order of each point.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff and the defendants as co-owners of the land listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter "land of this case"), the facts that the plaintiff and the defendants were co-owners of the land listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter "land of this case"), the shares of the plaintiff C31/1,885, shares of the defendant C31/1,885, shares of the defendant C31/1,885, shares of the defendant D297 May 1, 1985, shares of the defendant D30/1,885, shares of the defendant E30/1,885, shares of the defendant F29/1,885, shares of the defendant F.29/1,885) and the facts that there was no agreement on the

According to the above facts, since the agreement on the division method of the land was not concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants who are co-owners of the land of this case, the plaintiff may file a claim against the defendants for the division of the land of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. We examine the method of partition, as to the method of partition, and the method of partition, and the method of partition, if the co-owners reach an agreement, the method of partition may be selected at will. However, in a case where the co-owners divide the co-owned property through a trial due to a lack of agreement, in principle, it is possible to divide the property in kind. The auction of the property is ordered only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when the value might be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is divided in kind (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428, Mar. 26, 2015). In light of the aforementioned evidence, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case as indicated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition, taking into account the location, size, shape, and use of the land of this case and the shape and use of the land of each of the Plaintiff and the Defendants through division.

3. Conclusion.