1. Of the 17,752 square meters of D forest land in Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, the annexed drawing indications 1, 2, 3, 3-1, 5-1, 5-1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 8, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 1,223/17,752 out of D Forest land 17,752 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On July 4, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased 3,841/17,752 shares in the instant forest in KRW 1,162,00 (3,025 won per share, less than KRW 3,025 won, and less than KRW 3,841/17,752; hereinafter the same shall apply). On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on shares in the instant forest in KRW 3,841/17,752, and on August 1, 2015, purchased 10,030,000 (3,026 won per share) out of the instant forest in KRW 1/17,752, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 9, 2015.

C. As to Defendant B’s share of 1,820.6/17,752 out of the instant forest land on May 27, 2015, Defendant C completed each registration of ownership transfer as to the share of 854/17,752 out of the instant forest land on July 6, 2015.

Defendant C wishes to possess part 1,708 square meters in a ship (hereinafter “Defendant C-divided forest”) which connects each point of the annexed map Nos. 3-1, 4, 5, 5-1, and 3-1 among the forest land of this case. The Plaintiff wishes to possess the remaining 16,04 square meters including part 1,223 square meters in a ship which connects each point of the annexed map Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 51, and 5 among the forest land of this case (hereinafter “Plaintiff-divided forest”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In the event of a claim for partition of the article jointly owned under Article 269 of the Civil Act, the court may order the auction of the article and make the payment in installments only when it is impossible to divide the article jointly owned in kind or when the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced due to the division. Therefore, the court is in principle to conduct the in-kind division, barring such circumstances as above. Thus, it is possible to divide the article in kind and there is a need to do so, and the value thereof may be significantly reduced due