2. The real estate stated in the annex shall be put to an auction and proceeds therefrom.

A. Real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant forest”) was owned by K, L, and M respectively by 1/3 shares. However, N received from the above co-owners the registration of transfer of ownership on the portion of 9/714 out of the instant forest due to sale and purchase on November 24, 1992, and the Plaintiff received from N the registration of transfer of ownership on the whole share due to sale and purchase on February 10, 197.

B. Defendant I received the registration of ownership transfer on January 15, 2009 due to inheritance by agreement and division as to the remaining shares of M 205/714 of the instant forest land.

C. Defendant J acquired the registration of ownership transfer on April 10, 2009 with respect to L’s remaining shares in the instant forest on April 205/714.

K died on November 9, 2005, and the Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H jointly succeeded to the shares of 205/714 of the forest of this case among the forest of this case by Defendant B and his children.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. 1) The Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant forest land from K, L, and M with a specific size of 165 square meters; (b) asserted that the Plaintiff purchased it again from N; and (c) sought a partition of co-owned property, such as the primary purport of the claim. (b) However, in the mutual title trust relation or sectionally owned co-ownership relation, the person who partitioned the specific portion of the land in the mutual title trust relation can seek implementation of the share transfer registration procedure based on the cancellation of title trust as to the specific portion against the person holding the share registration as to the said portion; and (c) cannot seek a partition of co-owned property as to the entire land.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da84171, May 27, 2010). 3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot seek a partition of co-owned property as to the forest of this case, and submitted by the Plaintiff.