1. A ship that connects each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 11, and 280m2 among forest land in Pyeongtaek-si and 280m2.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as to Plaintiff A’s share 271/2880 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si C Forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff D and E completed the registration of transfer of ownership on shares based on donations, respectively, among the forest land of this case.

C. On October 24, 2014, the provisional registration of the Defendant’s share transfer right based on the pre-sale agreement was established, and the registration of collateral security and the seizure by the National Tax Service was established.

The plaintiffs withdraw the lawsuit for partition of co-owned property due to the commencement of voluntary auction of the shares of the defendant, but have failed to hold a consultation on the division by contact with the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Co-owned property partition

A. The Plaintiffs, as co-owners of the instant forest land, may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendant, who is another co-owner.

B. The method of partition lawsuit as to partition of co-owned property is not appropriate by the judgment of a constructive confession or public disclosure case, and according to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the defendant prepared a letter of commitment to purchase part 271 square meters in part of “b” located in the center at the time of purchase of the forest land of this case in 2013 for the purpose of access roads, such as the attached appraisal in the attached sheet, and the plaintiff A donated part of the shares to the plaintiff D and E. In response thereto, it is difficult to view that there is change of circumstances to cancel or change such agreement in light of the expected profit at the time of sale by the plaintiff A and the intent of purchase by the defendant

Even if the defendant asserts that the necessity of opening access roads does not exist, it is merely limited to the defendant's changes in the situation between the defendant and the defendant, and it is difficult to view that it leads to changes in the expectation interest of the plaintiffs.

In addition, the plaintiffs are defendants.