beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' lawsuits against Defendant D and H are dismissed.
2. 313,984 square meters shall be divided into the following categories:
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The relationship and circumstances surrounding the sharing of forest land before subdivision 1) The land 413,160 square meters in Tri-si, Gu, Si, Gu (U.S.) prior to subdivision (hereinafter “forest land before subdivision”).
() The instant Plaintiffs, Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, L, M, network N, and stock company were jointly owned by the nautical miles. On February 16, 2011, the nautical miles Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit seeking a partition of forest land (201No. 1541) with the instant court on April 5, 2012, “the 99,176 square meters out of forest before division shall be solely owned by the nautical miles, and the remaining 313,984 square meters shall be jointly owned by the proportion of co-ownership shares (1) listed in the attached Table 1 list. The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Accordingly, the forest was divided into the 9,1796 square meters of forest and forest owned by the former nautical miles Co., Ltd., Ltd. and the 313,984 square meters of forest and forest (hereinafter “TM”).
B. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Plaintiff, Defendant C, E, F, G, I, J, K, K, L, and net N, P, Q (the net N died on August 18, 2012 during which the instant lawsuit was pending, and O et al. took over the deceased’s legal proceedings.
(2) Defendant D’s acceptance Intervenor R and Defendant H’s acceptance Intervenor S (Defendant D’s acceptance Intervenor R was entirely the entire share of Defendant D on May 14, 2013, and Defendant H’s acceptance Intervenor’s acceptance Intervenor received all the share of Defendant H on July 12, 2012, respectively. The following is indicated as Defendant S’s “Defendant S”).
(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not complete consultation on the method of partition of the instant forest at the ratio of shares indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto. 2)
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleading
2. The plaintiffs' actions against the defendant D and H are instituted against the defendant D and H ex officio.