1. The part on the ship, which connects E forest E 91 square meters to each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 1 in sequence, in the order of each point.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared Plaintiff 165/91 shares, Defendant D30/91 shares, Defendant B496/991 shares, and Defendant B4991 shares in each of the statements in Gap’s 1, 3, and 2-1 and 2, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ co-owned share of the Plaintiff 165/991 shares, Defendant D30/991 shares, and Defendant B 496/991 shares. It can be acknowledged that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the forest of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff may seek a co-owned property partition against the Defendants pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Division of common property jointly owned by the method of partition may be selected at will if consultation between co-owners takes place, but if common property is divided by trial due to the failure to reach agreement, the court shall divide the forest of this case in kind in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da27819, Dec. 7, 1993). As to the Plaintiff’s seek in-kind division of the forest of this case as indicated in the text, Defendant B consented, Defendant D does not explicitly oppose the above division. Defendant D does not clearly oppose the above division. The plan for in-kind division to be sought by the Plaintiff is not unfair to Defendant D, and all other circumstances, such as the location, area, shape, and utilization status of the forest of this case, it is reasonable to divide the forest of this case in-kind in kind as shown in the text.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.