A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners on the register of 1,688 square meters of H forest land in Gyeong-dong, Hanam-gun (hereinafter “H forest”) and 1,166 square meters of Gyeong-nam I forest land (hereinafter “I forest”), and each co-ownership share is as indicated in the attached Table’s co-ownership.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree not to divide H forest land and I forest land, but did not reach an agreement regarding the method of division.

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

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff, a co-owner of H forest and I forest, and the Defendants, did not reach agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff may file a judicial claim against the Defendants for the said partition pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act. 2) The Defendants asserted that it is improper for the Plaintiff to seek for the in-kind division of H forest and I forest, as well as I forest, which are owned by the J door, title the same clan to Defendant B, K and deceased L (Death on July 10, 2007), and to the network M (Death on January 24, 2003).

H Forest land and I Forest land are in the middle of the J’s line owned by the parties, and the fact that the J’s title trust was held by Defendant B, K and network L and network M does not conflict between the parties. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion itself does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s claim in this case seeking a spot partition of H forest and I forest land, which is a co-owner who has been awarded a successful bid of 1/4 shares of H forest and I forest. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. Division of one method of partition of co-owned property may be chosen at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided by judgment because it did not reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind.