1. The part on the line (b) in the order of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 12, 13, and 6 of the annexed drawing of the 965 square meters in the East Sea.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff, defendant Eul, and defendant Eul share the land of this case with the share of 3/8 and 2/8, and that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants as to the method of dividing the real estate of this case, which is public property, by the closing date of pleadings in this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants based on his co-ownership.

2. As a result of verification by this court, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraiser E’s survey appraisal, the real estate in this case has one access road, and the real estate in this case has a house on the real estate in this case, and the defendants reside in the above house.

The Plaintiff’s land to be owned by the Defendants and the land to be owned by the Defendants are connected to the access road, but the housing in which the Defendants reside is divided into three-fifths of shares in (i) part 6,7,8,9,9, 10, 12, 13, and 6 of the instant real estate in the following order: (ii) part 362 square meters in the attached drawing; (iii) one,2,3,4, 4, 5, 6, 13, 12, and 1 in the following order: (a) part 603 square meters in the same drawing; and (b) part 603 square meters in the above line into two-fifths of shares in the Defendant B and two-fifths of shares in the Defendant C, respectively.