1. Of the 144,376§³ of D forest land in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Of the 116,276/144,376 square meters of forests and fields D 144,376 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), 116,276/14,376 shares are owned by the Plaintiff, and 1405/14,376 shares are owned by the Defendant B Co., Ltd, 140/14,376 shares, respectively.

B. There is no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and there was no agreement on the division method of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, result of on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a partition claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. 1) The method of partition of co-owned property can be selected at will when 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, in principle, the court shall divide it in kind. The auction of the goods can be ordered only when the value is likely to be reduced remarkably if the co-owned property is divided in kind or in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods as it is in kind according to the share ratio of each co-owner. In addition, the method of partition can be ordered in a reasonable manner without being bound by the parties’ request, and if the jointly-owned property is divided in kind, it is permitted to divide it in kind within the share ratio of the co-owner and the remaining co-owners who do not want the division remain in common (see Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da23428, Mar. 26, 2015; 2013>