1. Of the 3570 square meters of I forest land in Cheongbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do, the annexed map No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 1.

1. On June 20, 1970, JJ completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the portion of 432/1080 out of the forest of this case.

The Plaintiff purchased 324/1080 shares from K and L on April 10, 1970, and completed the share transfer registration on September 25, 1979. On July 24, 1976, the Plaintiff purchased 140/1080 shares out of the forest land of this case and was co-owners of 464/1080 in total of shares, the share of which completed the share transfer registration on October 21, 1994.

On April 10, 200, Defendant B purchased 100/1080 shares remaining except for the J and the Plaintiff’s shares in the forest of this case, and completed the share ownership transfer registration on April 19, 200.

On January 22, 2008, Defendant C purchased 84/1080 shares in the forest of this case except J and Plaintiff B’s shares, and completed the share ownership transfer registration on January 25, 2008.

(In conclusion, the forest land of this case is owned by J 432/1080, Plaintiffs 464/1080, Defendant B 100/1080, Defendant C 84/1080, and Defendant C 84/1080). On January 13, 1993, J died and became the heir of the wife Defendant D, Defendant E, F, G, and H.

The Plaintiff, among the forest land of this case, installed a mountain station in the part of the Plaintiff’s possession.

There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of subdivision, but the agreement on subdivision was not reached.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, respectively. 2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s occupied portion by specifying it and owned it separately, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the claim is without merit.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim for partition of the jointly-owned property, the Plaintiff may demand the Defendants, who are other co-owners, to divide the jointly-owned property.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff established a place of origin in the part of the Plaintiff’s possession, and the Defendants did not raise any objection against the division of the Plaintiff’s jointly owned property, the instant case.