1. The annexed map No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 are linked to the area of 1,084 square meters of B forest land in Seopopopo-si.

1. Of B forest land No. 1084 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff owned 3/13 shares, the Defendant owned 10/13 shares, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to divide the instant land. The fact that there was no agreement on the method of partition between the Plaintiff and the Defendant by the date of closing argument in the instant case does not conflict between the parties, or that the agreement on the method of partition was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant by the date of closing argument in the instant case may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the entries in No. 1-

According to the above facts of recognition, since an agreement was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as co-owners of the land of this case regarding the method of partition of the jointly owned property, one of the co-owners may file a claim for partition of the land of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not have filed a request for partition against the defendant in advance. However, since the plaintiff filed a claim for partition of co-owned property by the lawsuit in this case, and the agreement on partition with the defendant did not have been reached until the date of closing argument in this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff can file a claim for partition of co-owned property, unless there is any limit such as the special agreement prohibiting partition. Thus, the defendant's assertion is rejected.

2. The method of partition of co-owned property is a lawsuit forming a co-owned property partition, and the co-ownership relation as to the objects of co-owned property is to be resolved, by exchanging or selling shares among co-owners. Thus, the court shall make a reasonable partition according to the co-owners’ share ratio according to the co-ownership relation or all circumstances of the objects, regardless of the method requested by the person demanding partition of co-owned property, according to free discretion.

In this case, the plaintiff is identical to the purport of the claim.