1. A ship that connects each point of the attached description No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 2 among the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is the owner of 183/203 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant owns the remainder of 20/203 shares.

On May 4, 1983, the sole heir of C who died on May 4, 1983, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the division of co-owned property. Meanwhile, the instant land is in the rectangular form abutting on the port side, namely, the E site, north, F road to the right side, G to the lower side, and H, and the Plaintiff is a 1/2 share owner of the said E site.

2. Co-owned property partition claim and method thereof;

A. According to the facts established above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim a partition of co-owned property on the land of this case against the Defendant pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. The method of dividing the jointly-owned property through a trial is in principle divided in kind, and only when the value of the property is likely to be reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or to divide in kind in kind, the auction of the property can be ordered. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind according to the share ratio of each co-owner. The method of division is a reasonable partition according to the share ratio of co-owner according to the co-owner's share ratio at the court's discretion. In light of the form of the land of this case recognized earlier, the current status and ownership relation of the surrounding land adjacent to the land of this case, and the convenience and value of each land after the division, the part adjacent to the above E is divided into the area corresponding to the share ratio in the direction of the land of this case, and the remaining part is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant.