1. With respect to Ulsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3,676 square meters, the annexed appraisal map No. 28,29, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the results of the commission of surveying and appraisal to the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the results of the on-site verification and the purport of the entire pleadings by this court, the plaintiff and the defendant share 1/2 shares of Ulsan-gu Seoul District District Court 3,676§³ (hereinafter "the land in this case") between the land in Ulsan-gu and the defendant, and the land in this case are planted on the ground of the land in this case and there is no agreement on the division of the land in this case between the plaintiff and the defendant.

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff may request the Defendant to divide the land of this case based on his co-ownership.

Furthermore, as to the method of partition, the partition of co-owned property by trial is in principle based on the method of in-kind division as long as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the co-owner's share. In full view of the whole evidence presented in the pleadings of this case, such as the contents of consultation by the parties, structure, size, location, use status, and the attitude of the parties concerned. In full view of the purport of the whole evidence presented above, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case into the part (a) in the land of this case into the part (a) in the attached appraisal map and the part (b) in the ship, and other circumstances such as the situation of use, location, structure, possibility of entry into the road, etc., and the part (a) in the above part (a) in the ship can be deemed similar to the part (a) in the lawsuit of this case. In light of the various circumstances that were present in the pleadings of this case including the plaintiff and the defendant in the lawsuit of this case, it is reasonable to divide the part (b) as desired by the

C. As to this, the defendant has the ownership of the land of this case under the condition that the plaintiff and the defendant had the right to know, but 1/2 of each of the plaintiff and the defendant.