1. E- 74,479 square meters of forest land at a reasonable time;

A. Attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the forest land of this case, the Plaintiff shares 1/7 and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant clan”) share 4/7 shares, Defendant C and D shares 1/7 shares.

B. Until the date of the closing of the argument in this case, there was no consultation on the division method of the forest of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the forest of this case jointly owned pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. The method of partition of co-owned property (1) is that the co-owner may choose the method of partition at his own discretion, but if the co-owner divides the co-owned property through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. The court may order the auction of the property only when the value of the property is likely to decrease substantially if the co-owner is unable to divide it in kind or if it is divided 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 co-owned property into several items in kind at the share of each co-owner, and the method of partition shall be a reasonable division according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the court's discretion, rather than by the method requested by the parties concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, Jul. 22, 2004; 2004Da101825, Nov. 3, 2015).