1. With respect to the area of 305 square meters in the field of Gyeonggi-gun C, and the area of 92 square meters in the field of Gyeonggi-gun D road:

A. The answer 305 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun C shall be 305 square meters.

1. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) share the 351/397 shares, the Appointed-gun’s 12/397 shares, the Selection-gun’s 12/397 shares, and the Defendant share the 14/397 shares, respectively, in the proportion of the share of 351/397 shares, 12/397 shares, and 14/397 shares.

The plaintiff, the designated parties, and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the division method of each land of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the designated parties who are co-owners can claim the division of each land of this case against the defendant who is another co-owner.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The method of partition of co-owned property shall be acknowledged under paragraph (1), the fact-finding results to the Yang Pyeong Military Administration of this court, and the purport of whole pleadings.

The 397 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land before division”) in Gyeonggi-gun C was owned by the Plaintiff.

In 2015 and 2016, some shares of the land before subdivision were transferred to the designated parties and the defendant, and thereafter the land before subdivision was divided into each land of this case.

The land category of this case was changed from the land category to the road after the above division, and the designated parties and the defendant can enter the adjacent land through the land No. 2 of this case.

The plaintiff, the designated parties and the defendant agreed to designate the second land of this case as a road.

In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, the designated parties, and the Defendant established a road as a part of the land before subdivision owned by the Plaintiff and shared the site of the road. Accordingly, some shares in the land before subdivision were transferred to the designated parties and the Defendant, respectively, divided into each land of this case.

Therefore, the land No. 1 of this case is owned by the plaintiff.