The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

G forest land 251,306m2 shall be put to an auction at the same time and the auction cost shall be incurred from the sale price.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s forest land in this case is not easy to divide in kind, or is likely to reduce its value due to the in-kind division, so it shall be divided by auction division.

B. Defendant B and E do not oppose the division method asserted by the Plaintiff.

C. The forest land of this case by Defendant C and D must be divided by spot division.

3. In a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property, the court shall issue an order for partition according to the share ratio in a reasonable manner, taking into account the co-ownership relation or the overall situation of the property which is the object thereof, and, in principle, the share ratio refers to the share ratio of the value according to the share ratio. If the shape, location, situation of use or economic value of the object to be partitioned is not equal, in principle, the economic value should be adjusted according to the share ratio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da39105, Nov. 10, 1992; 93Da13445, Aug. 27, 1993). In addition, the partition of co-owned property by trial is in principle by the method of in-kind division, but even if it is impossible in kind or possible, if the price is considerably decreased due to such division, the auction price of the co-owned property should be divided, the price of the co-owned property should be remarkably decreased, and the co-owner's share in kind is considerably owned as well.