A. On August 16, 1988, the procedure for compulsory auction was commenced with respect to the portion of 1/5 shares of J among the 427,636 square meters of the original land area, which was the land before the subdivision, and the registration for the correction of the area was completed with the area of 416,030 square meters on February 24, 1989. On February 28, 1989, there was a decision to grant a successful bid on the deceased L (the highest auction price of 41,053,000 won) who is the highest purchaser.

B. On March 21, 1989, a 12,17 square meters was divided from the land before the subdivision, and the registration of subdivision was completed as a forest land in Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and the land before subdivision was 403,913 square meters in the land before subdivision.

On March 7, 2013, M Forest land in Jincheon-gun was divided into the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) and the Nancheon-gun in Jincheon-gun in Jincheon-do.

(c) the distribution schedule was drawn up on May 19, 1989 for the amount of 40,033,200 won which will be final dividends by adding interest at 41,053,000 won and deducting the enforcement costs;

The deceased L completed the registration of transfer on the ground of auction on July 30, 1991, No. 7825, which was received on July 30, 1991, which was Cheongju District Court No. 7825, Feb. 28, 1989, but did not complete the registration of transfer on the instant land, even though the successful bid price was fully paid.

E. At present, the Plaintiffs own 1/5 shares, respectively.

F. The deceased on June 7, 199. The deceased on June 7, 199, there was Defendant E (the inheritance shares of 3/9, Defendant F, G, and H (the inheritance shares of 2/9), whose spouse is the heir. By the closing date of the instant argument, there was no agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land by the date of the instant argument. [The fact that there was no ground for recognition, the entry of the evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the fact that there was no ground for recognition, the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the Mayor/Do governor at the time of the acceptance of this court, and the purport

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the land of this case is in question.