(a) connect each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 in sequence;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4-1 through 10, the plaintiff, N,O, defendant B, and Eul completed the registration of ownership transfer as to one-fifth of each of the land of this case, and N died on November 5, 1994. The heir died on his spouse D (3/11), defendant E, defendant E, F, G, L (2/11), and theO died on February 27, 2013, and the heir died on his spouse H (3/9 of inheritance), defendant I, J, K, and K (2/9 of inheritance portion). Thus, the plaintiff may claim a division of the land of this case against the defendants by the co-ownership right.

B. Defendant B, C, G, H, I, J, and K asserts that this case’s land is a land used as a family funeral, and thus cannot be divided.

However, the above circumstance alleged by the Defendants is that the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property on the land of this case goes against social order objectively.

It is difficult to see that the purpose of this article is to inflict pain on the other party, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiff's claim is prohibited by law or constitutes abuse of rights.

Therefore, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the method of partition of co-owned property, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purpose of the entire pleadings and appraisal results of appraiser P's survey and appraisal results, namely, (a) part (A) connected each point of the plaintiff's share on the land of this case in order to newly construct a house on the ground of this case, is 454.8 square meters (=2,274 square meters of the land of this case x 1/5 of the plaintiff's share) and actively wishing to be divided, and (b) the attached appraisal sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 are linked in sequence to each point of the following (a).