1. Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun I Forest land 28562m2m2 and the remainder of money obtained by deducting the costs of auction from the proceeds of sale;

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiff shared the forest land of this case in respective shares of 76165/285620, 38083/285620, Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H shared at each share of 28562/285620.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant forest land.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In light of the facts established above, the Plaintiff, as a co-owner, may request the court to divide the forest of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

(Article 269, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act). (b)

The method of division shall be deemed to be the method of division.

1) The partition of co-owned property is, in principle, unable to divide in kind or in kind, or if the value of the land is substantially reduced if it is difficult to divide in kind, the court may order the auction of the co-owned property to pay in kind (Article 269(2) of the Civil Act). The case where the division in kind is impossible or inappropriate in light of the nature, location or size of the co-owned property, the situation of use, and the use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property. 2) When considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the area of the forest of this case, the number of co-owners, and conflicts of interest among co-owners, it is considerably difficult to divide the forest of this case into the form of the forest of this case. The forest of this case is consistent with the common sense to determine that if the forest of this case is divided in kind in kind, the value thereof might be significantly reduced.

3) Therefore, it is appropriate to determine that the method of selling the forest of this case to auction and distributing the remaining amount after deducting auction expenses from the proceeds to the plaintiff and the defendants according to their respective shares of shares is appropriate. 3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition (the lawsuit of division of co-owned property is a formal form action, and is not bound by the plaintiff'