1. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Annex 17, 8 through 11, 18, and 17 of the annexed drawings among the 6,497 square meters of N forest 6,497 square meters in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Group.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff has 1/6 shares in each of the 6,497 square meters and 5,602 square meters of O,000 square meters of NA-gun, Chungcheongnam-nam Budget, and the Defendants have 5,602 square meters of O,00 (hereinafter “the instant forest”). The Defendants have shares in each of the shares in the shares in the attached Table of the Defendants.

B. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor purchased all the Plaintiff’s share in the instant forest after the instant lawsuit was filed, completed the transfer registration on January 5, 2018, and filed an application for succession on March 13, 2018.

Plaintiff

After the succeeding intervenor's application for intervention in succession, the plaintiff was unable to withdraw without the consent of all the Defendants.

C. The Plaintiff, the succeeding intervenor, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant forest land.

【Based on Recognition Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2, each fact inquiry results against the head of the P Eup/Myeon/Dong, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking partition of co-owned property is lawful, because the co-owner, who claims partition, becomes the Plaintiff and becomes a co-defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78556, Jan. 29, 2014). As such, the Plaintiff’s share as a part of the co-owner during the instant lawsuit as to co-owned property partition, transferred to B, and the transferee of the co-owned share, succeeded to the instant lawsuit by B, who is the transferee of the co-owned share, and the Plaintiff transferred his/her share, remains without withdrawal from the lawsuit even if he/she

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293 Decided February 18, 2016). 3. Determination as to the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. As seen above, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the co-owner of the instant forest, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division. As such, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the co-owner, was divided into judicial proceedings against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.