1.each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

A. Of the real estate listed in paragraph 2, the Schedule No. 18, 70, 69, 68, 67, 75, 76, 76.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be 4,751 square meters in case of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, such as the result of correction of registered matters, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be 132,876 square meters in case of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the registered matters (the boundary, area) were corrected, such as the correction of the area of 132,876 square meters in case of the real estate listed in the separate sheet; hereinafter “each of the real estate of this case” shall be based on the corrected boundary and area, which shall be referred to as “each of the real estate” in

(No. 2 of the instant case was 14,00,000,000,000 14,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,000.

The Intervenor asserted that “B”, the title holder of registration of initial ownership, who has his/her address in “Sasung-gun E,” was himself/herself, but the full bench excluded the intervention in the lawsuit as the Defendant in that the name (Defendant B: Defendant B) and his/her address (Defendant C: Defendant F) were different in terms of the name and address, etc., and subsequently, the Intervenor claimed that he/she had acquired prescription on June 10, 2016.

On the other hand, the order of service by public notice was cancelled as the defendant, who was going to serve by public notice on May 2017 because he did not serve as the wind to foreign countries.

C. Among each real estate of this case, three of the Plaintiff’s shipbuilding graves in the attached Form (C) is located, and in the part (d) the Defendant’s towing graves and ten of the Intervenor’s towing graves are located.

On the other hand, the shape and surrounding roads, heighters, etc. of each real estate of this case are as shown in the attached appraisal map and aerial photography.

There is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to prohibit the division of each real estate of this case.

On the other hand, there was no division consultation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on each of the instant real estate until the closing date of the argument.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 18, 19, 20, and evidence Nos. 1, 4, 1, 2, 3, and 16.