(a) The following facts are acknowledged in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including the serial number) without a dispute between the parties, or by integrating the overall purport of the pleadings:

1) In the event of the port prior to the division, the Nam-gu Pop 1,994 square meters (hereinafter “the land prior to the division”).

The ownership of Q was transferred to R on January 7, 1947. On August 2, 1949, the ownership of 1/5 of the above land was transferred to Q, and on August 2, 1949, the ownership of 1,294/1,594 of the remaining shares of Q (4/5) was transferred to S. As a result, R was transferred to 1,594/7,970 (i.e., 1/5 x 1,594/1,594 x 1,594 x 1,594 x 1,594) shares, S was 5,176/7,970 (i.e., 4/5 x 1,294 x 1,294) shares, and Q was divided into several parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as “land”).

3) R died on August 23, 1959, Q died on August 30, 1996, and S died on June 23, 1978. 4) The Plaintiff succeeded to the property of the network S among each of the instant lands, which is the sole heir of Defendant H, I, J, K, K, N,O, L, and G, and the inheritance of the property of the Defendant H, J, J, K, N, L, M, M, as a result of the inheritance of the property of the network Q. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each of the instant lands, and the details of sharing shares are as shown in the attached Table 2.

5. There is no agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the instant land.

B. Co-owners may request the court to divide the co-owned property in a case where the agreement on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement on the method of partition, and in principle, the partition of co-owned property in kind cannot be divided in kind as long as the share of each co-owner can be reasonably divided, but in the case of payment division, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, and the character, location or size of the co-owned property, the situation of use, and the use value after the division.