The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The co-ownership relationship between sectional ownership and sectional ownership is legally established only when an agreement has been made with respect to a certain land by specifying its location and size and by many persons to sectional ownership. Even if co-owners agree to divide the jointly owned property and have occupied and used it by specifying a part which has been divided as owned by each person from that time, a sectional co-ownership relationship can be established.

However, if there is no agreement among co-owners on the intention to exclusively vest a specific part in the co-owners, such a relationship cannot be established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71409 Decided April 29, 2005, etc.). The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not constitute a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship between the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the Republic of Korea, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant agreed to specify the location and size of the portion to be constructed among the forest No. 918 square meters in the Gu-si B forest No. 918 square meters

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sectional ownership sharing

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.