1. Attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1, among H forest land H 8,430 square meters in Cheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, each point in Annex 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty I, J and Defendant C owned 1/3 shares in relation to H forest land H 8,430 square meters in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant forest”). However, on March 22, 2010, the said J’s share was registered for the transfer of ownership to the Plaintiff.

B. On July 9, 2013, Nonparty I died and jointly succeeded to Defendant D, E, F, and G, a child.

C. Until the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, a co-owner and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on partition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to monthly rent, since the Defendants installed graves on the instant forest land without the Plaintiff’s consent or consent of use and used them.

Then, co-owners can use and benefit from all co-owned property at the ratio of shares (Article 263 of the Civil Act). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants used the forest land of this case in excess of their own share ratio, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment is without merit, separate from the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the defendants can file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the plaintiff, who is another co-owner, unless there are special circumstances, as co-owner of the forest of this case.

B. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property may be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided by judgment due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle, and it shall be in kind.