1. Annex 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 1, 71, 71, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 50 square meters of the attached drawings among the 12,893 square meters of D Forest in Jeonnam-gun, Namnam-gun.

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff and the Defendants may recognize the fact that they own 1/3 shares of the real estate indicated in the text (hereinafter “instant land”). Since consultation on the method of partition of each of the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not concluded by the date of closing argument of the instant case, one of the co-owners of the instant land can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, the remaining co-owners, pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. Division of a co-owner's jointly-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owner divides the jointly-owned property through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall, in principle, divide it in kind. The court may order the auction of the goods only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when the value of the property is significantly reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind, as it is, according to the ratio of shares

In addition, the method of division is not a way requested by the parties, but a reasonable division is made according to the share ratio of co-owners according to the court's discretion, depending on the situation of the co-ownership relation or the object of the division. If multiple persons divide an object jointly in kind, it shall be deemed that the division in kind is permitted within the share limit of the party's claim and the remaining co-owners who do not want the division are allowed to remain in common.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428, Mar. 26, 2015). (B)

Each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 5, and as to the branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the Republic of Korea.