hereinafter the same applies) The facts that the Defendant Company B owned the shares in the period of “share” as indicated in Annex C, D, E, F, G, and H were killed during the instant lawsuit and succeeded to the shares in Defendant Company B by their wife and children according to their respective equity ratios in the law. There is no agreement prohibiting division of the instant land, and the Plaintiff intended to hold a partition consultation against the Defendants regarding the instant land, but some of the Defendants did not confirm the location and actively respond to the request for consultation, and thus, the fact that an agreement was not reached between the parties is not reached, or that there was no dispute between the parties, or that there was no agreement between the parties, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in subparagraphs 1 through 4.

2. According to the facts established above, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant land, and there was no agreement between the said parties on the method of dividing the said land. Therefore, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the instant land based on the public land decentralization.

3. BC appraisal corporations of this Court, the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the result of the appraisal on the method of division of the common property owned by ASEAN, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendants, the heir of the deceased BD, agree to receive in-kind installments of C, D, E, E, F, G, H, and H (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Defendants and the Plaintiff collectively referred to as “the Plaintiff, etc.”) in proportion to 3/5 of their shares in the land of this case while maintaining the sharing relationship with the Plaintiff, and the remaining Defendants are active in the Plaintiff’s claim for division of the common property.