A. The Plaintiff owns 1/2 of the total area of 10 square meters prior to Busan Nam-gu L (hereinafter “the land No. 1”), and 1/2 of the total area of 24 square meters prior to Busan-gu M (hereinafter “the land No. 2”).

B. On December 26, 1991, a right to a site was registered for the purpose of real estate indicated in the separate sheet on December 26, 1991 with respect to each portion of the remaining one-half portion of the land of this case except for the Plaintiff’s ownership.

[Attachment 1] B 101-64/100 84/1300 2 C 102- 59/1000 76/1300 3 D 201-39/100 4 E 202, 38/1000 48/1300 49/1300 59/1300 520 59/100 76/1300 76/1300 6/300 39/100 300 39/100 500 301/1300 700 76/1300 700 300 302 308/1300 8/13008/100 504/1305/13040)

C. The Defendants are each owners of heading 101 to 402 among the indicated real estate in the attached Form Nos. 1 and 2. Each of the 1/2 shares in the land of this case is owned at the following shares:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 10, Gap evidence 4-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the claim for partition of co-owned property

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendants shared the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and since the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition by the closing date of pleadings of this case, the plaintiff may file a claim against the defendants for partition of the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case based on co-ownership right.

B. Division of one method of partition of co-owned property can be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided by judgment because it did not reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle and may divide it in kind.