The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the first North Korea from the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff shared 3/4 of the Plaintiff and 1/4 of the Defendant’s shares of 3/4 and 1/4 of the Plaintiff’s share of 485 square meters in Jeonju-gun, Jeonbuk-gun (hereinafter “Eri”) (hereinafter “E Ri”). However, each of the instant lands is divided into three-fourths of 3/4 and 121 square meters in D on August 26, 2015 (hereinafter “one parcel of land”). Each of the instant lands is divided into three-fourths of 3/4, and one-fourths of 1/4, respectively. When each of the instant lands is jointly referred to as “each parcel of land”).

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is the owner of F land adjacent to each of the instant land, and the Defendant is the owner of G land adjacent to each of the instant land.

C. Due to the fact that the G building owned by the Defendant was constructed with part of the land before subdivision, the Plaintiff and the Defendant divided the land before subdivision into the land before subdivision as shown in the annexed Form 3, and the land in this case owned by the Plaintiff, and the land in this case owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant co-owned property partition agreement”), and divided the land into each land in this case by making a partition survey.

However, on November 19, 2015, the owner of the I land divided from H land, which was used as an access road to each of the instant land, installed a gate on the boundary of November 19, 2015, and became the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry, film, and whole pleading of Gap 1, 3, 5, Eul 2, 4, and 6 (including each number)

2. Determination:

A. 1) According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the counterclaim, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, pursuant to the co-owned property partition agreement of this case, shall be divided into one-fourth shares (the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the co-owned property partition agreement as to the shares of the Defendant) among the land of this case, which the Plaintiff decided to be solely owned by the Plaintiff from the Defendant pursuant to the co-owned property partition agreement of this case.