A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the forest land listed in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) according to the ratio of shares in the attached Form 2 co-ownership shares.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the method of dividing the pertinent forest land into common property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the forest of this case, may seek a partition of the forest of this case against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, as to the method of division, the above part of the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendants as to the forest of this case, and the use status of the forest of this case recognized by Gap's 3 and 4 as the result of survey and appraisal by the appraiser and the purport of U's whole pleadings, the number and location of graves existing in the forest of this case, the relation of the defendants, and the plaintiff's assertion of division as to the plaintiff's assertion of division as stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article, defendant B, L, M,O, K agree. The defendant C, E, and G did not submit a written response and did not appear at the first date for pleading and at the second date for pleading, and did not present any opinion to oppose the plaintiff's division, and did not appear again on the third date for pleading, and the defendant D, F, I, H, N, and K, the remaining defendants except the defendant P, Q, and R, and the plaintiff's opinion on division as stated in the order of this case without presenting any opinion.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.