1. Land for a factory in Namyang-si: C. 778 square meters;

(a) Description 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 13, and 2 of the Annexed Drawings.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant share each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) as one-half shares.

As of the closing date of the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the division method of the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If a consultation on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may file a claim for partition with the court. If it is impossible to divide the property in kind or the value of the property is likely to decrease remarkably due to the division, the court may order auction of the property (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, co-owners, as co-owners, may file a claim for partition against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269 of the

B. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property is in principle divided in kind by the court in the case where the co-owners voluntarily choose the method, but if the co-owned property is divided by the judgment because the agreement is not reached.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183 Decided July 22, 2004, etc.). In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate into spot items as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article and divide it into cash with respect to the difference in market value after the division, and to compensate for the difference in ownership after the division into cash.

① The instant real estate is a food manufacturing factory and office.