청구이의
1. The Seoul High Court 97 money5458 (principal lawsuit), 97 money5465 (Counterclaim co-owned property partition, etc.) held by the Defendants against the Plaintiff.
1. The basic facts are as follows: (1) The land prior to subdivision shall be owned by the plaintiff with the area E of forest E of the wife population E of the land prior to subdivision;
② Of the land before subdivision, the wife population J. 19,205 square meters and K forest 15,933 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) shall be the co-ownership (one-third shares) of G, H and I.
(3) Of the land before subdivision, 1,226 square meters of land in the wife population in Pyeongtaek-si shall be the joint ownership (one-2 equity share) between the Plaintiff and G.
④ The Plaintiff removes each of F, G, H, and I’s sheir sheir breeding ground on the instant land, red bricks, and sapapap residential buildings, natural stone landscaping, gardening structures, cafeteria buildings, arms-type buildings, arms-type buildings, provisional buildings, and light steel-framed conference rooms, and ordered the relevant part of land to be ordered.
On June 23, 1997 between the Plaintiff and F, G, H, and I, who owned the land prior to subdivision E 105,422 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “land prior to subdivision”), and F, G, H, and I, the following conciliation was established and the protocol was prepared:
(hereinafter referred to as “instant protocol of mediation,” and claims and obligations relating to Paragraph (4) based on the instant protocol of mediation (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim and obligations”) B.
G, H, and I completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each portion of 1/3 of the instant land on April 28, 1999, pursuant to Section B of the instant protocol of conciliation, but the Defendants shares the land of this case at present following the procedure of public sale, sale, voluntary auction, gift, etc.
C. Meanwhile, on August 3, 199, F, G, H, and I obtained an execution clause under the instant protocol. The Defendants were the successors of F, G, H, and I on November 27, 2014, and were granted an execution clause on succession to the instant protocol, but did not remove and enforce the order based on the instant protocol of mediation.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
(a)the cause of the claim;