1. The sale price shall be the remainder of B forest land No. 44828m28m2 at the same time, excluding the auction cost;

1. Basic facts

A. On October 27, 1983, with respect to B forest No. 44828 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) at the same time, C was registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of C on October 27, 1983, and C sold part of shares to a large number of persons around 191 through a real estate planning business entity and made registration.

B. On May 2005, the Plaintiff purchased shares of Co-owners D and E, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership. On July 2009, the Plaintiff purchased shares of Co-owners F and completed the registration of transfer of ownership.

On February 20, 2007, one part G succeeded jointly to the property of H, I, F, D, J, and E, one-six children.

(c)

Co-owners and co-ownership shares of the land of this case as of the closing date of pleadings of this case are as shown in the separate sheet of co-owners and public land.

(d)

The forest of this case is a blind site with no access road, and is limited to a planned control area, an agricultural and forest area, and a natural environment conservation area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

E. There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 3's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s sole ownership of the part pertaining to the Plaintiff’s grave among the instant forest land, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking spot division with the content that the remainder is owned by the Defendants.

B. (1) Determination (1) In principle, division of a co-owned property by trial is to be made in kind as far as the co-owners can make a reasonable division according to their shares. However, the requirement is not physically strict, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, and the use value after the division (Supreme Court Decision 98Da5169 delivered on March 9, 2001). (2) In this case, the evidence submitted in the whole purport of the arguments is comprehensively taken into account.