1. On the ship, which connects B 2595 square meters prior to Jinjin-si, each point of which is indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 19 through 24, and 1.

1. Basic facts: ① The land in question was originally owned by Do, E, and F in their respective shares of 1/3 shares. With respect to D’s shares of 1/3/3 shares, the registration of transfer of shares was completed in Defendant G’s name through inheritance. As to E’s shares of 1/3 shares of 1/3 shares, the registration of transfer of shares was completed in Defendant H and the Plaintiff’s name, respectively, through inheritance, sale, and the registration of transfer of shares of 1/6 shares was completed in Defendant H and the Plaintiff’s name.

② In addition, the F died on September 23, 1945. The inheritance relationship and the share of inheritance are as indicated in the attached Tables 2 and 3’s calculation table of inheritance.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In addition to the evidence revealed prior to the above facts of recognition, each of the instant lands is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in proportion to their shares as stated in the table of co-ownership in annexed Table 4, and it can be recognized that the agreement on the method of partition of each of the instant lands has not been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. As such, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a judicial claim for the partition of each of the instant lands, which are co-owned properties.

Furthermore, the following circumstances, i.e., the results of an appraiser I’s on-site inspection of the method of partition, the overall purport of arguments, based on the results of appraiser I’s survey and appraisal, i.e., the land of this case is being used as a group of land without classifying the boundary of the land due to dry field, multi-house site, etc., although the land category in the public record is different, and ii) the shape or location of each land of this case is deemed to be the most reasonable to divide the southwest and northwest part of each land of this case in order to maintain the value of land use after partitioning, and ③ the defendant G and H claimed the division by lots on the grounds that the officially announced land value of each land of this case differs from each other.