1. B forest land: 19,000 square meters among forest land in Gyeyang-si;

(a)inboard connects each point in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, 14, 13, 16, and 2;

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the same share as indicated below with respect to B forest land B 19,009 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Co-owners’ co-owners’ share 1,453/19,09/19, Q 2,209/19,009/19,653/19,653/4, Defendant J 19,009/619/7, Defendant T 19,009/19,487/487/19,653/19,609/19, and the Defendants’ co-owners’ share 92/19,09/19,653/19,09/19,609/19,7/19,609 of the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ co-owners’ share 9/109/19,609/19,609 of the date of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ 9/19,609/19,609,609/19,619,609/19,619,609/19.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If a consultation as to the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the property (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, co-owners, as co-owners, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269 of the Civil

B. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property is in principle divided in kind by the court in the case where the co-owners voluntarily choose the method, but if the co-owned property is divided by the judgment because the agreement is not reached.

Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on July 22, 2004