1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A Forest land A 4297 square meters in Kuju-si shall be owned by Plaintiff B;

(b) prime liquor;

1. Basic facts

A. Each land indicated in the text of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) is divided into a piece of land within a size of 149,951 square meters of A forest land in prime City. The Plaintiffs, the Defendants, etc. shared each of the instant land.

B. The above co-owners did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the land of this case, and the existing plaintiffs filed a judicial claim for the partition of the land of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Method of dividing the instant land;

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be known in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 18 (including paper numbers):

1) The previous members and the Defendant jointly purchased the instant land. At the time of purchase, only the land map, provisional partition map, and arrangement plan map were designated, and the specific location and boundary appears to have been determined through the co-owned property partition consultation on the grounds of the above provisional provisional partition. 2) The existing Plaintiffs seem to have filed the instant lawsuit in order to implement the co-owned property partition procedure according to the agreement on the co-owned property partition proposal made pursuant to the agreement. On April 27, 2010, the first instance judgment, which accepted the existing Plaintiffs’ claims, was rendered.

3) As to the judgment of the first instance, no appeal was filed within the appeal period. After that, Defendant AI filed a subsequent appeal on July 8, 2016, which was about six years after it was about 6 years thereafter (Defendant AI’s subsequent appeal is lawful in record).

) The substantial grounds for appeal did not dispute the judgment of the first instance, but rather, it was impossible to register the partition of co-owned property in accordance with the judgment of the first instance court because Defendant NN transferred the instant land to GJ prior to the date of closing of argument in the first instance trial, and thus, it was ordered to correct it. 4).