1. Part 1 inboard, which connects each point of 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 1 in the attached appraisal sheet with the Plue Plue P 347 square meters, in sequence.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 347 square meters P&347 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in their respective shares listed in the separate sheet in Ansan-si. The fact that there was no dispute between the parties or consultation on the method of dividing the instant land, which was jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants by the date of closing argument in the instant case, may be acknowledged by adding the overall purport of pleading to the statement in the evidence No. 1-1.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of division. Therefore, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. Division of the article jointly owned can be decided by the parties at their discretion, but if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach agreement, it is in principle divided in kind. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article can be ordered. The land in this case does not seem to have such special circumstance. Thus, the land in this case is divided by the method of spot division.

B. Furthermore, as to the specific method of partition on the instant land, there is no dispute between the parties, or as a result of the instant court’s on-site inspection, the following circumstances that can be seen by adding the entire purport of pleadings to the result of the appraiser Q’s survey and appraisal by the appraiser Q. In other words, the Plaintiff owned solely with regard to the land size of 586 square meters and land size of 172 square meters adjacent to the land size of 222 square meters in the text, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the partition of co-owned property in this case.