1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant School Foundation A L.C. from the Plaintiff in Suwon-si.

1. Basic facts

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this part of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (including each number), "Nos. 4 and 10 (including each number)" in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is deemed to be "Nos. 1 through 10 (including each number), and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as follows, is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 1-B-3). (b) The land of this case was publicly announced by the urban management planning and implementation plan, along with the land around December 11, 1978, which was determined as the site of a school (Nuniversity) pursuant to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

2. Method of partition of the article jointly owned;

A. The reasoning of the judgment on the partial payment of the price compensation in kind is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the land of this case is not used for the purpose of education and academic research, such as for the research period of the N University’s agricultural, forestry, and food research and development project, and that it is possible to engage in development activities. However, the land of this case is designated as a school site in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 20 and 21, the land of this case can be recognized as being used for the purpose of research at N University operated by the Defendant Educational Foundation A for a considerable period of time, and it cannot be deemed that the land of this case can be used for any other purpose than the school site, and therefore the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit).

According to the appraisal result of R of the appraiser at the time of simultaneous performance and the amount of damages, the value of the Plaintiff’s share in the land of this case is recognized as having been 562,78,000, and the said appraiser calculated the value by applying the officially announced land price standard law.

The above appraiser is similar to the land of this case.