Defendant D’s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by Defendant D.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal is the claim.

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for the division of the jointly-owned properties related to the E-Gun forest area E 2,380 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and the claim against the Defendant B for the return of unjust gains on the excessive possession of the land owned by the Defendant. Defendant B, as a counterclaim, filed a registration procedure on the transfer of ownership on October 15, 1998, with respect to the portion (A) of the instant forest area, which connects each point of 1,2,3,4, and 1 of the annexed drawing No. 4 among the instant forest areas, which is part of 16 square meters of the instant forest area.

The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust profits against Defendant B and Defendant B’s counterclaim, respectively, while rendering a judgment on dividing the ownership of the forest of this case into common property.

Therefore, since Defendant D only appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, the court of this case is to determine only the portion of the claim for partition of the forest land of this case.

2. Basic facts

A. Ownership and possession relationship 1) The Plaintiff owns 2,380 square meters of forest E in North-gu, Northern-si (hereinafter “instant forest”) in terms of shares 2,122/2,380, Defendant D’s share 93/2,380, Defendant C’s share 99/2,380, Defendant C’s share, and Defendant B’s share 66/2,380.

2) On the ground of (b) part 82 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Table 1 drawings Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 23 among the forest land of this case (hereinafter “Defendant B”), Defendant C occupies part 102 square meters in the ship (c) connecting each point of 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 30 square meters in sequence, among the forest land of this case; Defendant D occupies part 2,3,4, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the attached Table No. 2 drawings.

B. As a result of the division consultation and appraisal, the Plaintiff proposed the Defendants to divide the forest of this case, but did not support the division method. Thus, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

2) The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C in the course of the instant lawsuit.