1. The plaintiff's action against L, M, N,O, and P shall be dismissed.

2. The forest land Q2,348 square meters shall be put up for auction at three times.

1. We examine the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s suit against the Selection L, M, N,O, and P ex officio on the lawfulness of the suit against the Selection L, M, N,O, and P.

In full view of the respective descriptions and the purport of the evidence Nos. 5, the fact that the Defendant (Appointed Party), the appointed party, L, M, N,O, and P are the successors of the network R, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) who is the inheritor after the death of the networkR may recognize the fact that the Defendant (Appointed Party) completed the registration of transfer of all the shares of the networkR on November 23, 2015 for the forest of this case on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division.

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the designated parties who are the remaining successors is unlawful as it is against those who are not co-owners.

2. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5, and the whole arguments against the defendants and the defendant (appointed parties), the real estate of this case can be acknowledged that the plaintiff, the defendants, and the defendant (appointed parties) share the co-ownership of the shares in the attached Form No. 5.

In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner, or the requirement that it cannot be divided in kind in kind is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, use situation, use value after the partition

It includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind is likely to be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind, and it also includes the case where the value of the portion to be owned by a person in kind may be significantly reduced than the value of the share before the division, even if he/she is a person of a co-owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). Written evidence Nos. 2, B 1-2, B 1-1, 2-2, B 4-6, and the result of this Court’s verification.