1. An appraisal map in the attached Form No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,7,8,9,9,10,12,13, 14,29,28,27,27,21, and 21, among the land of 13,48 square meters in a public city in a public city;

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each share in the attached Form No. 13,488 square meters of LA forest (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the time of official residence, and there is no special agreement prohibiting partition between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant real estate, and there is no agreement prohibiting partition between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant real estate, and it is recognized that there was no agreement

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may claim the division of the said real estate against the Defendants, who are other co-owners pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. The Plaintiff appears to have agreed to divide the co-owned property partition method with some Defendants as stated in the Disposition No. 1. The remaining Defendants also do not raise any objection despite being served with a written spot partition plan with the above contents, and the present situation of the instant real estate, etc., it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate into the Disposition No. 1.

3. In conclusion, we decide to divide the instant real estate as above and decide as per Disposition.