A. As to F forest land 3,174 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1/5 shares, respectively.

B. On the ground of the part 2,540 square meters of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 1 of the instant land connected with each of the items in sequence, among the instant land, a variety of graves, seen as the cemetery cemetery of the Defendants, are located. The part 10, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 square meters of the aforementioned portion of “A” and the same appraisal are linked with each of the items in sequence 10, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 square meters of “B” part 634 square meters of the above land adjoining to the road established in the vicinity of the said land.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the partition of co-owned property until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Reasons for Recognition: Records or images of Evidence A of Nos. 1 through 4, Results of a request for surveying and appraisal by this court, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim the partition of the land against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

B. In full view of various circumstances revealed in the pleading process, such as the share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendants as to the land of this case, the location, shape, size, use relation, and the fact that the Defendants did not raise any objection as to the spot partition method presented by the Plaintiff, as seen in the above acknowledged facts, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition.

3. In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by dividing the land of this case between the plaintiff and the defendants in the above manner.