1. In the ship that connects each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 4, and 1 among the 2,77 square meters of F forest land in Jinjin-si.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the instant land was jointly owned by the Defendants and G in proportion to 1/4 shares. However, in the compulsory auction procedure as to G 1/4 shares, the Plaintiff purchased them and acquired ownership of 1/4 shares on March 27, 2018, and currently owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to 1/4 shares.

The plaintiff and the defendants did not have an agreement prohibiting partition of co-owned property, but did not reach an agreement on the method of partition.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, can file a claim with the court for partition of co-owned property.

(1) On February 2, 200, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the method of partition of co-owned properties under Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act, as well as the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and No. 1, it is not impossible to divide the land of this case in kind. Of the land of this case, there is a co-ownership of the Defendants’ co-ownership of the surrounding land, and there is a co-ownership of the land of this case, and the Plaintiff’s co-ownership of the land of this case from 1981 to 2, 3, 5, 6, 4, and 1, there is no co-ownership of the land of this case, and the remaining part 1 to 2027 square meters of the land of this case and each part 56 square meters of the land of this case is divided into the Defendants’ co-ownership of the land of this case.

3. The conclusion is that the land of this case is divided in kind as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.