1. Of the 19,782 square meters of Nanyang-si Nanyang-si, each point indicated in Appendix 1-3, 33, 15, 18, 19, 24-27, 32, and 1 in sequence.

As to the land of this case, the Plaintiff held 9,917/21,223 shares, 9,984/21,223 shares, 1,05736/21,223 shares, 1,057/223 shares of Defendant C, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, remainder 26434/21,223 shares, each of which is the heir of the networkO. The fact that the agreement on the method of dividing the land of this case was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants by the closing date of the pleadings of this case is not a dispute between the parties, or that the agreement on the method of dividing the land of this case was not reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants by the purport of each entry and all pleadings of subparagraphs A through 6 (including the serial number).

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the land of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

As to the method of partition, the plaintiffs wish to divide the land of this case as stated in the Disposition No. 1, and considering all the circumstances, such as the result of surveying and appraising the land of this case and the present utilization status, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of pleadings and the result of surveying and appraising the land of this case as well as the fact that the defendants explicitly consented to or do not raise any objection to the plaintiff's assertion, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case in kind as stated in the Disposition No.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the same reasons above.