A. The forest land of this case is owned by the intervenor, and the intervenor title trust and completed the registration of ownership transfer with H, I, J, C, and K, each of which is the final cause of November 30, 1971.

B. Of the instant forest land, the registration of the entire share transfer of H’s name was completed on July 22, 1996 for the instant forest land due to the successful bid, and the registration of the entire share transfer of H’s name was completed on March 16, 2012 due to the sale by voluntary auction.

C. On January 3, 2007, with respect to the shares of K among the forest land of this case, the registration of full transfer of shares in the name of Defendant D was completed due to the inheritance due to the consultation division.

Of the forest land of this case, the transfer registration of the entire shares in Defendant B’s name was completed on February 20, 2008 due to legacy on February 20, 2008.

E. On October 10, 201, the Defendant (Appointed Party), appointed parties, M, N,O, P, Q, R, and name 1/40 shares transfer registration was completed due to inheritance by consultation and division on October 10, 201 with respect to the shares of J among the instant forest land. The aforementioned Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties completed the entire registration of shares transfer on August 19, 2014 with respect to their shares among the instant forest land, on which the instant lawsuit is pending.

F. On March 23, 2015, Defendant C, D, and B pending the instant lawsuit, the Intervenor completed the entire registration of transfer of shares based on the termination of title trust with respect to their shares among the forest land in the instant case.

G. The parties of this case did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of co-owned property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Byung evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The forest land in this case is jointly owned by the plaintiff and the intervenor, and there was no special agreement prohibiting the partition of co-owned property between the parties. Thus, the plaintiff is against the intervenor based on his co-ownership right.