1. A ship which connects each point of the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3 in sequence among the area of 1,653 square meters of WW forest in Innju-si.

1. Determination as to the remainder of the Defendants except Defendant S

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(The first co-defendant X was the defendant after being marked as the defendant by mistake even though the plaintiff purchased the shares.

Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, M,O, P, Q, R: Defendant U, and V by public notice (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant S

A. The facts constituting the separate claim do not conflict between the parties.

(2) The Defendant S has been present at the date of pleading and recognized the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff (165159/197275) and the Defendants (attached Form 1) share the same ratio.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

On the other hand, co-owners may request a partition of the article jointly owned (the main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act), and if the consultation on the method of partition of the article jointly owned does not lead to an agreement on the method of partition, co-owners may request a court to divide it, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or the value of it is likely to decrease remarkably due to the

(Article 269 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant real estate pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

In principle, partition of co-owned property by judgment is in principle divided in kind as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to each co-owner's share.

However, in light of all circumstances, such as the location, area, use situation, and use value after the division, it is reasonable to view that the division in kind, as indicated in the order, is an appropriate method for the division in kind that accords with the respective share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.