A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared shares of 240,323 square meters of land AT in the Jinandong-gun, Jinandong-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”) in shares in the corresponding column of the attached Table.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the method of dividing the instant real estate until now.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 to 5, each entry with Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Co-owned property partition claim

(a) Co-owners may request a partition of the article jointly owned (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act) and, if the consultation on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may request a court to divide it, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order the auction of the article;

(Article 269 of the Civil Act). (b)

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the forest of this case pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269 of the Civil Act.

3. Method of partition of the article jointly owned;

A. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the principle of partition of co-owned property, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value thereof is apprehended to be significantly reduced, an auction of the property may be ordered, and the requirement of “undivided in kind” here includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization status, use value, etc. of the jointly-owned property in light of the nature, location, and use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40225 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.) B.

The defendants, other than defendant C, F, T, and Q, are the copies of the complaint of this case, which are acknowledged as a whole by taking into account the following circumstances, including the statement of No. 4 of this case and the purport of the whole pleadings.