1. The order of each point is indicated in the annexed Form No. 53, 54, 55, 3, 4, 55, and 53 square meters of the forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Intervenor (the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s forest of 3,817 square meters in U.S., Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”).

() Although the Defendants and P, who are co-owners of the instant lawsuit, filed the instant lawsuit with the Defendants and the Defendants as the Defendant, the assignee, had completed the registration of ownership transfer for the entire P shares on November 8, 2016 pending in the instant lawsuit from P, the right holder of the instant forest and field, and the Plaintiff filed an application for participation in the lawsuit against the Intervenor, and subsequently withdrawn the lawsuit against P, after which the Plaintiff filed an application for participation in the lawsuit against the Intervenor, the Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit against the Intervenor) shared

B. As to the partition of co-owned property in the instant forest, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the assignee.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport before oral argument

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, the co-owners of the forest of this case, the Defendants, and the Intervenor did not reach agreement on the division. Thus, the Plaintiff, based on his co-ownership right, may request the Defendants and the Intervenor, who are other co-owners, to divide the forest of this case, except in extenuating circumstances.

I would like to say.

We examine the partition method.

As a litigation over the partition of co-owned property, the court may order partition in a reasonable manner at its own discretion without having difficulty to seek a partition of co-owned property by the Plaintiff. In the case of the partition of co-owned property in kind, it is permitted to divide the property within the share limit of the claimant for partition and to allow the remaining co-owners who do not want the partition to remain in co-ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da8888, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the evidence submitted, the amount of Q, U. Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Q, 4368 square meters adjacent to the instant forest is owned by the Plaintiff, and to obtain a building permit on the forest land in Q