1. Of the land size of AB forest AB 1754 square meters in Seosan-si, attached Form 1. The portion of attached Form 1. The portion of each of the drawings and the area thereof.

1. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including a paper number), the forest of this case is the land where the settlement village residents formed around 1954 formed a stable in the forest of this case and raised livestock and maintained their livelihood by exclusively occupying and using a part of the livestock shed in the forest of this case. At present, the plaintiffs who are the vice-party owners are engaged in the livestock industry while exclusively occupying and using a livestock shed in the forest of this case. The sum of the plaintiffs' share in the above forest of this case is 42/102 and the aggregate of the defendants' share in the remaining co-ownership by co-owners is 60/102.

2. In full view of the circumstances that the Plaintiffs recognized as the above facts and the result of the instant deliberation, were seeking to continue to engage in the livestock industry by using the specific portion of the instant forest as their own possession, the Plaintiffs are sharing only the Plaintiffs the portion 7,022 square meters indicated in the annexed drawing among the forest land in this case, regardless of the legality of the claim for partition of co-owned property on real estate in partitionedly owned co-ownership. In addition, it is reasonable for the Defendants to divide the portion 9,934 square meters into co-ownership according to their respective co-ownership ratio. Furthermore, even the portion used as a road between the said portion 1 and the portion 444 square meters in proportion to the said portion, it is reasonable for the Plaintiffs to divide that portion 206 square meters in proportion to the said portion into co-ownership ratio, and the portion

On the other hand, the plaintiffs sought confirmation that they have the right to use and benefit from the roads above in accordance with their respective shares of shares, but this is based on the premise that they have the above status in the co-ownership status of the plaintiffs and the defendants. As seen above, the above status is divided into the parts owned by the plaintiffs and the parts owned by the defendants, so the above claim is divided into the parts owned by the plaintiffs and the parts owned by the defendants.