1. Forest land of 21,939 square meters in terms of the 21,939 square meters in Gangseo-gun;

A. Attached Reference. 23, 24, 27, 31, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 30, 26, 23.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant land. The Plaintiff’s share is 5484/21939, Defendant B’s share is 2745/21939, Defendant E’s share is 413/21939, Defendant D’s share is 2742/21939, Defendant C’s share is 585/21939, and Defendant C’s share is 585/21939.

B. On October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by purchasing four-story buildings of reinforced concrete structure H No. 1 of Gangwon-gun H, Gangwon-gun, which was owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant building”). The instant building is also part of the ship connecting each point of the marks indicated in [Attachment 45, 46, 47, 48, and 45] in order to refer to the attached reference.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree to the prohibition of partition regarding the instant land, and the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and E agreed to the division proposal set forth in the Disposition No. 1, but Defendant D and C did not consent thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the appraiser I's survey and appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant real estate and did not reach an agreement as to the method of partition of the instant real estate between the parties. Thus, the Plaintiff has a co-owned share right against the Defendants.

B. According to the result of this court’s verification of the method of partition, the result of appraiser I’s measurement and appraisal, and the purport of the whole pleadings, according to the protocol of partition as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, the Defendants are entitled to own only the area corresponding to their own shares, but the Plaintiff is entitled to own solely the area smaller than their own shares, and ② Defendant D and C filed the lawsuit of this case from July 25, 2014 to July 2015, without presenting any plan for partition, against the Plaintiff.