1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list AB 19,249.3 square meters, and against the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list.

1. Facts under recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the arguments as to Gap evidence 1 to 3 and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), as well as the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence of this Court.

In Seosan-si, AB 19,249.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case”) the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and four other parties listed in the remaining Schedule 1, 141.3/19249.3 shares, and the respective shares of 91/19249.3 shares.

B. The Plaintiff M& company (hereinafter “Plaintiff company”) shares shares 1982/20741.4 shares, and the remaining Plaintiffs share 91/20741.4 shares, among the Plaintiffs listed in the attached Table 2 list, with AC 20,741.4 square meters (hereinafter “2 land”).

C. From March 201, the Defendant exclusively occupied and cultivated the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 from March 201, but there was a decision of provisional disposition to the effect that the Defendant shall no longer engage in farming activities on the instant land Nos. 1 and 2, from July 12, 2018 in the instant case of temporary disposition against the Defendant (this Court Decision 2018Kahap45), which the Plaintiff Company raised against the Defendant.

The amount equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2019 of the instant land shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Even if a co-owner holding shares in the claim for transfer of ownership is a person entitled to claim the registration of shares in the co-ownership or a person entitled to claim the transfer of ownership for such shares, the co-ownership cannot be exclusively possessed and used for profit-making without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, the other co-owners may demand delivery or surrender of the co-ownership to the person holding the co-ownership even if his share in the co-ownership falls short of the

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392, 93Da9408, Mar. 22, 1994, etc.). The above recognized facts and evidence are the same.