1. The Defendants are appointed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties indicated in the separate sheet:

(a) Busan Sodo-gu D 187m2 and 187m2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since 2003, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties indicated in the attached sheet (hereinafter simply referred to as “designated parties L”) and the Defendant B share a lot of 187 square meters and 17 square meters (in addition to two parcels, hereinafter referred to as “instant site”).

The aggregate of equity shares in A 13/84 of the co-ownership relationship (before February 8, 2012) between co-owners (after February 8, 2012): 63/84: F 6/84/842 of the Appointed G 6/846/846/844 of G 6/844 of G 6/8484, G 6/846/845 of the Appointed 15/84/846 of the Appointed 11/84/847 of J 111/84-847 of the Appointed 11/847 of the Appointed 11/847 of the Appointed 11/844, Defendant B 88, Defendant B 21/8437/84 (Appointed's acquisition of equity shares)

B. On the ground of the above site, one building of mentmen block structure, ment block structure, string roof (which exists on the ground of 53 square meters away from each point described in attached Form 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 11, 12, and 2; hereinafter “the building of this case”). The Defendants are constructing a building on the ground of the above site. The Defendants are operating a store with mutual name “M” in the above building, and at the loading yard (which is located on the ground of 27 square meters away from each point described in the same drawing; hereinafter “the loading yard of this case”) connected to the above building, the Defendants are storing goods in the loading yard that is located on the ground of 27 square meters away from each point described in the same drawing.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, the result of appraisal of appraiser N by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) A co-owner of land for determination as to delivery, removal, and removal may use and benefit from all the co-owned property in proportion to the share ratio (the latter part of Article 263 of the Civil Act). However, all or part of the property cannot be exclusively used or benefit from the property without consultation with other co-owners. If it is violated, other co-owners may seek to deliver the property to themselves as a preservation act of the property jointly owned

Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392, 93Da9408 delivered on March 22, 1994.