1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties shall indicate to the Plaintiff the annexed drawings among the 50,380 square meters of the Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of transfer of ownership was completed on November 24, 1970 with respect to the land listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 6, 1996, F purchased the part of “b” as stated in paragraph (1) of this case among the land in this case and delivered the said part at KRW 5,655 square meters (hereinafter “b” in this case). The “special agreement” in the sales contract prepared at the time is indicated as follows:

"D, E and the transfer of the contract at the time of the contract is not possible. Therefore, since the seller D sells the shares to E, all responsibility shall be held.

(b)joint liability with respect to the entry of the guarantor G and H in time of war at the time of the subsequent registration.

C.D died on January 28, 200. D

E On August 10, 2008, after the death of the Defendant (Appointed Party) B and the appointed party I, J, K, and the appointed party N,O, and P already deceased on May 7, 2005, succeeded to the property by inheritance or inheritance as shown in the Schedule.

E. The Plaintiff purchased and occupies the dispute portion to F on January 19, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 7-16 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a case where a part of the co-owner's real estate of this case is deceased, the inheritor of the deceased co-owner does not succeed to the status as the co-owner, barring any special agreement between the co-owner. Thus, if there are more than two co-owners, the pertinent real estate shall belong to the co-ownership of the remaining co-owners and if there are only one co-owner, the remaining co-owner shall belong to the sole ownership of the remaining co-owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da23238, Dec. 10, 196). In this case, there is no evidence to prove that there was such special agreement between E and D, the co-owner of the instant land of this case, and in this case, D, January 28, 200.