1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2, 2009, the forest land X 16,066 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) in Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-do was registered for ownership transfer on the ground of each “trade” between September 3, 2009 and January 25, 2010. The Defendants of this case and AB (the former owner of Defendant S’s shares) filed ownership transfer registration in proportion to each co-ownership in attached Table 3.

B. On October 12, 2011, the remaining Defendants and AB filed a lawsuit claiming a partition of co-owned property against AA to the effect that the forest of this case is divided in kind with the Plaintiff, except Defendant S, and the instant judgment became final and conclusive on November 19, 201.

C. Of the instant forest land, the ownership transfer registration was made on October 17, 2012 with respect to the shares 2,174/32,132 in AB among the instant forest land on the grounds of sale on October 17, 2012, and the Defendant S was again subject to a compulsory auction on August 11, 2015.

Of the forest land of this case, with respect to 3,224/32,132 shares in YA Co., Ltd. (AA prior to the alteration), ownership transfer registration was made on June 22, 2016 for the Plaintiff on the ground of sale by compulsory auction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the forest of this case was co-owner and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division, the Plaintiff may file a judicial claim against the Defendants for the said division pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

Since the forest land of this case is difficult or inappropriate to make a partition of co-owned property by the method of spot partition, it shall be made by auction.

B. The Defendant’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful inasmuch as there is no benefit to institute a lawsuit contrary to the res judicata of the judgment in the previous suit.