1. It connects AB forest AB forest 9,59 square meters in order of each point indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 4, 32, 16 to 31, and 1.

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared the forest land indicated in the disposition in the same proportion as the co-ownership shares in the separate sheet before the division (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”).

B. The Plaintiffs, co-owners of the instant forest land, sought the division of the said forest land, and the agreement on the method of division was not reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

C. The Plaintiffs sought a partition of co-owned property in the form of co-owned property sharing by the Defendants on the part (1) in the attached Form No. 1, and (2) in the ship.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to Leecheon branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiffs, as co-owners of the instant land, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners. As seen earlier, the parties did not reach an agreement as to partition of co-owned property. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking resolution of co-ownership relation is with merit.

B. Co-owned property partition by judgment on the method of partition is in principle by the method of in-kind division as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to each co-owner’s share. In light of the location, shape, and size of the forest of this case, the share ratio of the parties concerned, and circumstances in which most Defendants did not dispute over the method of partition of co-owned property desired by the Plaintiffs, it is reasonable to divide the forest of this case in-kind division in

3. It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims in this case are reasonable.