1. Of the 1,457 square meters of C forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the appraisal map was successively connected to each point of the attached Table 1,2,5,6,7,4, and 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the Plaintiff 6/7 shares and the Defendant 1/7 shares in the Plaintiff 6/7 shares and the Defendant 1/7 shares in C forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Until the date of the closing of the instant argument, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may file a claim for partition against the Defendant, a co-owner of the land of this case 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 will, 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 be significantly reduced 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 make a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several items in kind according to the share ratio of each co-owner. The method of partition is not the way requested by the parties, but it is reasonable division according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court or the overall situation of the article which is the object thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da101832, Jul. 22, 2004). 204.