1. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be owned by the Plaintiff, and the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to L 2,102 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”), in the name of the Plaintiff, 121/240, in the name of the Plaintiff, 64/240, in the name of the net M, and 55/240, in the name of Defendant K.

B. The deceased on November 30, 1997, and the deceased on 3/13, Defendant B, C, D, E, and F jointly inherited the network N 2/13, respectively. After the death of the network N on February 1, 2012, Defendant G, H, I, and J jointly inherited each one/4.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a claim for partition of co-owned property with the Daejeon District Court Branch 2016Kadan102623 (hereinafter “instant case”) against the remaining Defendants, excluding the pertinent Defendants, who are the deceased N’s successors. Based on the results of survey appraisal and market price appraisal, the said court owned the Plaintiff’s share of the specific part of the land before the instant partition as of October 26, 2016. The remaining part of 1,110 square meters is divided into the co-ownership by the persons specified as the Defendants at the time, and the decision for recommending reconciliation was made by means of paying 4,896,000 won to the said Defendants with respect to the part acquired by the Plaintiff in excess of their shares, and all of the relevant parties did not raise any objection to the decision for recommending reconciliation.

Since then, the land before the division of this case is based on the contents of the survey, appraisal, and recommendation of reconciliation, and each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case"), and the "O real estate of this case" is referred to as specific land.

E) Division was divided. E. There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of each of the instant real estate, and there was no special agreement prohibiting partition. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (each of the entries, including number, and the purport of the entire pleadings)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each real estate of this case, is the co-owner of another co-owner pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.