1. The wife population S Large 9,906 square meters;

(a) connect each point in Appendix 17, 3, 4, 16, and 17, indicated in Appendix 1.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs (Appointeds), the designated parties, the Plaintiff’s successors (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the Defendants, and the Intervenor taking over of Defendant Q (hereinafter “Defendants” for convenience) are co-owners holding 1/20 shares of each of the 1/20m20m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) of the wife population S large 9,906m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants newly constructed one house on the ground of the instant land on September 22, 1993, as indicated in the attached Form 3, and owned it.

(4) On January 26, 2014, Plaintiff Q’s acquisition intervenor: (a) on January 26, 2014, on the ground that Plaintiff Q’s 1/20 shares of the instant land and the above-ground buildings were inherited; (b) on January 15, 2015, Plaintiff Q’s acquisition intervenor donated 1/20 shares of the instant land and above-ground buildings; and (c) on June 24, 2016, Plaintiff Q’s succession intervenor owned Plaintiff Q’s 1/20 shares of the instant land and the above-ground buildings on June 2, 2016; and (d) there was no dispute regarding the method of partition; and (d) the Plaintiff, co-owners of the instant land, who were co-owners of the instant land, did not have agreed on the method of partition, based on the right to share ownership.

In the case of dividing land in the method of partition, in principle, the area of land acquired by each co-owner shall be equal to the ratio of the co-owned share; however, it is not necessarily necessary to divide land in such a way, but if the form, location, utilization situation, or economic value is not equal, it is also allowed to divide the economic value in proportion to the share ratio in consideration of all such circumstances.