1. AH forest 28,760 square meters in the following order: AH forest 28,760 square meters and attached appraisal maps are linked in order to each point of 5,6,7,35,34, and 5.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/10 of the Plaintiff’s forest land AH 28,760 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to the total 9/10, and the Defendants shared the same at each ratio. The fact that there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the instant land until the date of closing the argument in the instant case, or that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the instant land, and it is recognized by each description in subparagraphs A through 3, 6, and 8 (including

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the land of this case.

2. In a case where the co-owners divide the co-owned property in kind by a trial because there is no agreement as to the division of co-owned property in kind, the court shall, in principle, divide the co-owned property in kind. The court may order the auction of the goods only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when the value might be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall make a judgment to divide the co-owned property in kind into several goods according to the ratio of shares of co-owners and to recognize the private ownership of each co-owner for the divided goods.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendants and the Defendant’s co-ownership share in the form and form of division, and the Defendants did not raise any objection thereto. However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendants and the Defendant’s co-ownership share in the land was divided into the land, and the Plaintiff’s claim stated in the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim is deemed to be a co-ownership share of the Plaintiff’s co-ownership; and (b) the Defendants did not raise any specific objection thereto.