1. The part (A) of the attached Form No. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3, among the 167 square meters of land for permanent residence, are linked in order to each point, 9.

1. In a case where the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the plaintiff, among the land of this case, owns 175/185 shares, the defendant shares 10/185 shares, and the plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the division of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff, who is the co-owner of the land of this case, may file a claim for the division of the land of this case against the defendant, who is another co-owner pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s size equivalent to 10/185 shares out of the instant land is 9.03 square meters (i.e., 167 square meters x 10/185 x 10/185 x the third place below the decimal point); (b) the Plaintiff’s size equivalent to the Plaintiff’s 175/185 m257.97 m2 (i.e., 167 m2 x 175/185 x 175 m2, 175 x the third place below the decimal point) by adding each point of the drawings indicated in the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3; and (a) the land in this case is deemed to have been divided into 1,2,3,6,7,8, and 101 m200 m2,000.

3. In conclusion, the land of this case is reasonable to be divided according to the above method, and it is so decided as per Disposition.