1. The Defendants divided B forest land No. 24,029 square meters into co-ownership of shares indicated in the attached Table 2 in Gyeyang-si, and the C forest land shall be classified into joint ownership of the Defendants.

1. In full view of the arguments and the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a land number), the part corresponding to B forest land No. 24,198 square meters (hereinafter “C forest”) was co-owned by the plaintiff, defendant D, etc., but the plaintiff filed a claim against defendant D, etc. for partition of co-owned forest as to forest land No. 2016Kadan655, Jun. 13, 2017. The part corresponding to B forest land No. 24,029 square meters (hereinafter “B forest”) among forest land No. 1 through 3 was co-owned by defendant D, etc., and C169 square meters (hereinafter “C forest land”), which became final and conclusive at that time. The plaintiff did not partition the forest land No. 2012 and the remaining co-owner of the forest land No. 3169, Feb. 13, 2017.

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts, the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to divide B forest land into co-ownership such as the Defendants’ 2 shares, and C forest land into the Plaintiff’s sole ownership.

Defendant E, F, G, H, I, and J are opposed to the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of the jointly owned property, such as Defendant K, L Only Order No. 1, among the remaining Defendants other than Defendant E, F, G, H, I, and J.

B. Defendant K asserts that, while the officially announced value of forest land B is 8,200/m2, the officially announced value of the forest land C is 8,960/m2, the Plaintiff’s claim that the jointly owned property is not fair.

However, according to Defendant K’s assertion, the total value of B forest land and C forest land is 198,552.