1. The plaintiff and the plaintiff who sold the E forest E in Seosan-si 58512m2m2 to auction and deducted the auction expenses from the price.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared forest E-do forest land 58512 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in accordance with the shares indicated in the attached Table, in Seosan-si.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the division of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] between the plaintiff, defendant B, and C: Facts without dispute, or entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings, and between the plaintiff and defendant D: Confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Co-owners of the immovables which have created the right to partition of co-owned property may claim partition of the co-owned property, and if the agreement on the method of partition has not been reached, the court may request partition; and

(1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, and the Defendants, did not reach an agreement on the division. As such, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff may file a claim for the division with the court against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

3. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. The method of partition of co-owned property in accordance with the relevant legal principles is, in principle, to divide it in kind with the one in which a reasonable partition can be made according to the co-owner's share, or if it is impossible to divide it in kind in kind or if it is likely that the value might be reduced remarkably if it is difficult to divide it in kind, an auction may be ordered to divide

The requirement of “undivided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are found to acknowledge the purport of the entire argument of the evidence as seen earlier, namely, the land in this case is on the road.