1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, the Attached Form No. 1, No. 2, 2.

1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant forest”) is owned by the Plaintiff 8/17 shares, Defendant B, D 2/17 shares, Defendant C5/17 shares, and facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of common property among them can be acknowledged. Thus, the Plaintiff, co-owner of each of the instant forest in this case, as co-owner, may file a claim for the division of each of the instant forest in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil

2. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property can be decided voluntarily if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. The court may issue an order for auction of the goods only when the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced if the co-owners divide it in kind or 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, and the method of partition shall be determined by the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court, rather than by the method requested by the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, Jul. 22, 2004).