2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On September 5, 2011, when the deceased died, I forest 6,122 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) were owned by the deceasedJ. As to the instant forest, the inheritance commenced on September 5, 201, the ownership transfer registration was completed with respect to the instant forest owned by Defendant B, Defendant C’s 1/27 shares, Defendant C’s 1/27 shares, Defendant D D’s 4/27 shares, Defendant E’s 1/27 shares, Defendant F’s 4/27 shares, Defendant G’s 6/27 shares, Defendant H’s 6/27 shares, Defendant H’s 6/27 shares, Defendant H’s 4/27 shares, and Nonparty K’s 4/27 shares on October 8, 1990.

B. Around January 2012, a public auction was conducted on the shares of Nonparty K, and the public auction was conducted. In the above public auction procedure, the Plaintiff’s share transfer registration was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on July 1, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s share 4/27 of the said K was awarded a successful bid on July 16, 2014 for the public auction on July 1, 2014.

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

2. Determination:

A. (1) The judgment on the primary claim was not reached with the Defendants as to the division of the Plaintiff’s claim jointly owned property. As such, the instant forest land should be divided by spot division, and the instant forest land should be divided by the Plaintiff’s share in the attached Form 1 Provisional Division Plan. Of the attached Form 1 Provisional Division Plan corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share, the part (A) in the instant forest should be divided by the Plaintiff’s ownership in sequence.

(2) (A) We examine the judgment (A) and examine the partition of co-owned property according to the annexed Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga, which was submitted by the Plaintiff, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the part (A) of the instant forest corresponds to the access roads to the entire forest of this case, and if it is owned solely by the Plaintiff, the forest owned by the Defendants

In addition, the forest land of this case seems to continue to be prepared, such as sexual seedlings, and the protection of graves, due to the existence of the defendants' correction. For this purpose, the forest land of this case is up to the above mountain site.