A. Each point is indicated in the Appendix 1, 2, 3, 36, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 1.

A. (1) The Plaintiff and Defendant B shared 222/606 shares, respectively, and the Defendant Republic of Korea shared 162/606 shares in 222/606 shares in 2,000 square meters prior to 2,000 Dongcheon-si.

(2) The Plaintiff and Defendant B shared 1/2 shares of 321 square meters prior to Dongducheon-si D.

B. There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of dividing the land of 2,003 square meters and 321 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) prior to Dongbcheon-si, Dongcheon-si, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the instant lands.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 4, the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal by appraiser E, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each of the instant land, and the parties did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of each of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to claim partition of co-owned property against the Defendants based on their co-ownership.

B. In full view of the share ownership ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as to each of the instant land, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the current status of the instant real estate, the size of partition, ownership relationship as to each of the instant real estate after partition, and connection with the current status and roads, which are recognized by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence as seen earlier, it is deemed reasonable to divide

3. According to the conclusion, the real estate of this case is to be divided in kind as the disposition and it is so decided as per Disposition.