1. (1) Of the 661m2 in Fancheon-si F forest land, each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 68, 63, 62, 60, 61, and 1 shall be in sequence.

1. Facts of the dispute

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B’s co-ownership of 14,380 square meters of F forest land in Macheon-si prior to the division of shares (hereinafter “F prior to the division of this case”; hereinafter in the indication of land, “Macheon-si I” was owned by J only by the lot number.

On July 27, 1996, the transfer registration of shares was completed on July 27, 1996 with respect to the 661/14,380 of the G before the instant partition.

With respect to the portion of 826/14,380 of the G before the division of this case, the transfer registration of shares was completed on December 15, 2004 in the Plaintiff’s future.

B. On September 8, 1999, G prior to the instant partition of land was divided into three parcels with G 661 square meters, G 826 square meters, H 12,893 square meters after the division of land.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant division of land,” but the registration following the instant division of land was completed on September 6, 200.

The specific location and area of the above three parcels shall be as follows:

(1) G after the division: The portion inside the ship which connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 68, 63, 59, 60, 61, and 661 square meters in the attached Form 6, 7, 67, 64, 57, 58, 59, 63, 68, and 68, and 60 square meters in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 66, 67, and 12,893 square meters in the ship which connects each point of 6, 67, 67, and 60 square meters in the attached Form 7-57, 64, and 7

C. On November 6, 2012, Defendant C, D, and E donated 850/14,380 shares to Defendant C among the said three parcels on November 6, 2012; 700/14,380 shares to Defendant D; and 5043/14,00 shares to Defendant E respectively; and on November 21, 2012, the aforementioned Defendants completed each share transfer registration based on the said gift.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that there exists a co-owned property partition consultation with regard to G before partition (determination as to the Plaintiff’s primary claim) and that the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the J divided the instant G among three parcels divided according to the instant division of land, which were divided by the Plaintiff, the Defendant B, and the Plaintiff, and H agreed to own independently, but the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the J jointly reached a co-owned property partition consultation.