2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are siblings, E are the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Selection C is the defendant's wife, and the Selection D is the defendant's children.

At the time of the date of the argument of this case, the defendant and the designated parties are residing in each real estate listed in 10, 11 of the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as the "house of this case") along with E as at the time of

B. The Defendant, who was born in F and E, died on August 29, 2008, is South-Nam, G 2 South-Nam, the Plaintiff 3 South-Nam, and H, who was a woman, F.

F purchased on December 3, 1998 the real estate stated in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and three G names. On September 30, 2003, the F was transferred from the Plaintiff’s share of the Plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, 4, and 5.

F At the time of the death of August 29, 2008, there were 1/3 ownership shares of each of the real estate listed in the Schedule 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the inherited property and the real estate listed in the Schedule 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the instant housing and the separate sheet 2, 3, 4, and 5.

E on October 29, 2009, the inheritance shares of 3/11 on the real estate listed in attached Table 1 were donated to G; on October 29, 2009 and December 16, 2010, 3/11 on each real estate listed in attached Table 6, 7, and 9, to the Defendant; on October 29, 2009, the inheritance shares of 3/11 on each real estate listed in attached Table 8, to the Plaintiff and the Defendant; on October 29, 2009, the inheritance shares of 3/11 on each of the real estate listed in attached Table 6, 7, and 9 were donated to D, respectively.

C. On January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property against the Defendant, G, H, and Appointed, Suwon District Court 2012Kadan3667, as indicated in the separate sheet, on each real estate recorded in the separate sheet, and conciliation was established as indicated in the separate protocol.

2. As alleged by the parties and the Plaintiff’s determination on the assertion, as described in the attached Form No. 5 of the Adjustment Clause, only the mother-friendly E did have resided in the instant house without compensation, and it does not permit the dwelling of the Defendant, Appointor C, and Appointor D. Thus, the Defendant and the Appointor have the obligation to specify the instant house to the Plaintiff.