2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by Defendant F.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. Regarding the Plaintiff’s name, 816,00 shares of 136,00 shares out of the instant land, with respect to Defendant H, I’s name, 816,00 shares of 34,400 shares, and with respect to shares of 34,00 shares of 816,00 shares, Defendant C’s name, 816,00 shares of 436,600 shares, with respect to shares of 57,600 shares in Defendant D’s name, 816,000 shares of 40,800,800 shares in Defendant E’s name, 816,000 shares of 40,800 shares in Defendant’s name,816,000 shares of 17,000 shares of 17,000 shares, the registration of ownership transfer was completed, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land by the date of closing the argument in the trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim the partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners.

In this regard, Defendant F has developed dry field, cultivated crops, and lived together with the owner of the land of this case while owning their own own own land, and Defendant F also purchased from Defendant C a specific portion of land (1,200 square meters) with a tombstone on June 7, 198, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants asserted that there exists sectionally owned co-ownership relation.

In other words, at the time of Defendant F’s purchase of part of the instant land from Defendant C, the instant land was owned by Defendant C, D, B, and Nonparty K, there are no circumstances to deem that the said co-owners owned the specific portion exclusively, and there is no sectionally owned co-ownership relationship. Accordingly, the instant land was transferred several times of shares, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants were finally transferred.