1. Of the 645 square meters in Yangju-si, the number of points indicated in the Appendix No. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 6 are successively connected.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be acknowledged by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2.

On January 13, 1993, Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 3/27 shares of G 645 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Defendant D, E, and F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each share of 2/27 out of the instant land on January 13, 1993.

C. On April 22, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 1/3 of the instant land during the compulsory auction procedure.

Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 26, 2013 with respect to 1/3 shares out of the instant land.

E. Defendant B owns the unregistered building (the nominal owner on the building ledger shall be the Defendant B’s put to the building ledger) on the H large 221 square meters and the above H’s ground abutting on the instant land in Yangju-si.

F. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant land, and the parties did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the instant land, which is jointly owned.

Furthermore, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 and the overall purport of arguments as a result of the survey appraisal entrusted by the court, regarding the method of dividing the land in this case, namely, ① the H land owned by defendant B adjacent to the land in this case and the unregistered building on its ground is adjacent to the part (a) in the indication of the attached drawing. ② In the case of defendant B, the division as described in the attached drawing Nos. 1 is deemed to reasonably use the building on the H land in this case, and ③ the land in this case has an economic utility that can be independently used and traded because the access road has already been secured.