1. For the plaintiffs:

A. Of the land listed in the attached Table 1, Defendant C shall also indicate 4,5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the claims against Defendant C and D, the facts of the cause of the claim and the changed cause of the claim can be acknowledged in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 12.

Defendant C and D shall list the attached list

1. The Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13533 Decided June 11, 2004 cited by the above Defendants’ agents on the premise that the ownership relationship prior to the auction was the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relationship.

In the case of a co-owner not a sectionally owned co-ownership, even if the ground to see that the statutory superficies under customary law has arisen for one co-owner of the land, the statutory superficies under customary law for the ownership of the building cannot be established.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below held that the co-owner of the instant land was 23/53 shares of H, and that the co-owner of the instant land was 23/10 shares of H, and that the co-owner of the instant land was 3/100 shares of H, and that the co-owner of the instant land was 23/53 shares of H, and thus, the court below held that the co-owner of the instant land was 3/10 shares of H, and that the co-owner of the instant land was 20552 shares of H, and that the co-owner of the instant land was 30,000 won of the instant land and the co-owner was 50,000 won of the share of the instant land, and that the court below held that the co-owner of the instant land was 200,000 won of the co-owner’s share of the instant land, and that the court below held that the co-owner was 106,000,00 won of the share of the Defendant 1.