1. Aboard (A) which connects each point of the attached 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 1 with reference to the attached Reference Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 29m2 in Chungcheongnam-si.

In full view of the entries in Gap 1 and 2 and the results of surveying and appraisal as well as the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to the head of the Chungcheong branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation of this Court, the appraiser, defendant and D are recognized as having completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one-half of each of the 1/2 shares out of the 298 square meters of forest C, Chungcheongnam-si on May 14, 1986 (hereinafter "the land in this case"). The plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in the real estate compulsory auction procedure on February 28, 2019 and paid the successful bid price in full, the plaintiff did not reach an agreement on the partition of co-owned property between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the present status of the land in this case is as described in the attached reference.

In light of the above facts and the location, area, utilization status, topography, etc. of the instant land indicated in the instant pleadings, it is reasonable to divide the portion (B) of 149 square meters in the instant land into the Defendant’s possession, which connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 1 in sequence, of referring to referring to referring to referring to 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 4 of referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to 1, 5, 6, 7, and 4 of referring to referring to

In other words, among the land in this case, the above (B) part among the land in this case passed through non- packing roads, while (A) part is a franchising with no road, so it may be seen that the above (B) part is more valuable, but in light of the fact that the plaintiff claiming a partition of co-owned property selects the above (A) part for his own use, it is the most fair to divide as above.

The plaintiff asserted that the land of this case should be divided in kind because it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind. However, there is no evidence to deem that the land of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value of the land of this case after the division. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Thus, the plaintiff's partition of co-owned property.