1. Each Defendants listed in the separate sheet No. 3 shall pay money from the Plaintiff in the separate sheet No. 3 attached hereto.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners of each of the instant real estate.

Defendant B, C, and D are co-owners’ successors to the network F, who are the successors to the network E, and Defendant G, H, I, and J are co-owners’ successors to the network K, and Defendant L, M, N,O, P, and Q are co-owners’ successors to the network R among co-owners.

B. The ratio of the Defendants’ share of co-ownership of each real estate is as stated in the column for subdivision by Defendant among the attached Tables 3 through 5, and the Plaintiff has 2/29 shares of each real estate.

(c)

The agreement was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the method of dividing each real estate of this case by the closing date of pleadings of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach agreement on the method of partition of each of the instant real property, the Plaintiff, one of co-owners, barring special circumstances, may file a claim against the Defendants for the division of each of the instant real property jointly owned against the remaining co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. A lawsuit for partition of an article jointly owned by the method of partition is a lawsuit for the formation of a co-ownership, and the co-ownership of the article is the subject of the co-ownership through the exchange of shares between co-owners or the sale of shares. As such, the court shall make a reasonable partition according to the co-ownership relation or the share ratio of the co-owner depending on the overall circumstances of the article, which is the subject of the co-ownership, regardless of the method requested by the claimant for partition

In comprehensive consideration of the causes of sharing and the ratio of share of co-ownership, economic value of divided co-owners, wishes of co-owners for division method, etc., it would not impair the substantial fairness among co-owners.