1. Of the 694 square meters in the warehouse C in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, the portion 100 square meters (b) is owned by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 100/694 of the building site E and buildings thereon (hereinafter “instant housing”) and F forest and 694 square meters of G warehouse site (hereinafter “instant land”), as the decision to recommend reconciliation was finalized in the case of Nonparty D and Jinwon District Court Decision 2016Dhap10128, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 100/694 of the ownership of the instant land.

B. The defendant is the owner of the share of 594/694 of the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the registration of co-ownership with respect to the land of this case is based on the mutual title trust relationship with the co-ownership on the part indicated in the annexed drawing(b). Since the Plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the title trust through the instant complaint, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust with respect to the part No. 100 square meters of the annexed drawing(b) as indicated in the annexed

B. In light of the determination, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a mutual title trust agreement between the Plaintiff (or Nonparty H, the former owner of the instant land) and the Defendant to specify the respective parts of the land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff shared 100/694 shares in the land of this case, and 594/694 shares in co-owned land, and it can be acknowledged that the above parties did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the land. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the above real estate.