1. The Defendants indicated on Attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, among the land size of 1158 square meters before the Gyeonggi-gun AJ of Gyeonggi-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 24, 2015, AK newly constructed and sold AM apartment on the ground of the Gyeonggi-gu AL, Gyeonggi-do, and sold it to the Plaintiff and the Defendants, who are occupants, specified the location as shown in the attached Form 2 so that some of the 1158 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located adjacent to the Plaintiff and the Defendants can be used as a garden, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by owning each co-ownership share.

B. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased “A” portion of 512.94 square meters, which connects each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 9, 1, and 2 from Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 9, 1, and among the instant land, from Annex 2, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as 512.94/1158

C. The part owned by the Plaintiff, which is divided into the parts owned by the Plaintiff, is not less than 529 square meters in part 529 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “the part owned by the Plaintiff”) that connects each point of attached Table 1 appraisal No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 13 among the land of this case, and each ownership share of the Defendants with respect to the land of this case is indicated in the “share” column of attached Table 3.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the result of the commission of cadastral surveying appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the above facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendants explicitly constituted a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship with respect to the instant land, and that the Plaintiff and the Defendants were in a mutually

Meanwhile, it is clear that the duplicate of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention of termination of title trust against the Defendants reached the last date on February 12, 2016, and thus, the mutual title trust relationship with respect to the land of this case was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention of termination.

Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to the Plaintiff’s ownership.