(a) The indication of the attached Form(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), and (1) in turn;

A. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired part of the shares in Defendant D (1,260.375/10) (1,260.375/10) on December 9, 2015.

B. Although the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D want to divide the instant land as stated in the purport of the claim, they are currently missing and thus are not divided.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the method of partition of co-owned property, such as the written order presented by the Plaintiff, the remaining Defendants except Defendant B agree. In accordance with the said method of partition of co-owned property, the area of each of the parts divided to the Plaintiff and the Defendants is the same as the area corresponding to the current share ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the location, use status, and intent of co-owners, among the land in this case, the portion 1,156 square meters of the "creamble" portion of the attached drawing among the land in this case is owned by the Plaintiff, and the portion 208 square meters of the "bbb" portion connected in order to each point of (7), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the same drawing is owned by the Plaintiff, and the portion 8,719 square meters of the remaining "1" portion of the land in this case, excluding the portion of the above drawing "b" and "c (3)" portion 8,718,625 square meters, is owned by the Plaintiff and Defendant D, and it is reasonable for Defendant B to share 8,718,625 square meters in the proportion of shares in this case, 504,501, 506, 718, 75025, 718, 765

3. In conclusion, the land of this case is divided as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.