1. The Plaintiff shall sell 9130m2 of N Forest land in Seopopopo City to auction and the remainder of the money excluding the auction cost.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2003, Estema Construction Co., Ltd., a real estate company planning and real estate ownership, acquired ownership of Nanpo-si Nanpo-si 9130m2 (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and sold the instant forest land under the premise of the development of the instant forest land by arbitrarily dividing it. The Defendants purchased the specific area of the instant forest from Estema Construction and completed the procedure for share ownership transfer registration in the proportion of shares as shown in the attached Table after purchasing it from Estema Construction.

Estema Construction Co., Ltd. owned 967/9130 shares of the forest of this case among the forest of this case, and was seized from the State on April 7, 2008, and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the said shares through public sale procedures.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendants share the forest land of this case in the same proportion as the shares in the attached Table column.

B. The current status of the use of the instant forest is a blind site with no access road; it is a planned control area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; it falls under a management preservation area under the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City; thus, the Defendants cannot conduct land division, which is the purpose of the Defendants purchased; and it is possible to obtain authorization and permission under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants, who agreed on the division of land jointly owned by the Plaintiff, asserted that the division should be made in kind because it is impossible to divide the forest of this case in consideration of the current status of the forest of this case and the fact that there are many co-owners. As to this, some Defendants asserted that part of the forest of this case is divided, and thus, the partition of co-owned property cannot be

Until the closing date of the instant case, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing the pertinent forest land’s common property.

[Grounds for recognition] dispute.