1. The Plaintiff’s sole ownership is divided into a 1012 square meter in Kimhae-si D-si.

2. The Plaintiff’s KRW 9,176,525 against Defendant C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The instant land is the land jointly owned by the Plaintiff (180/380 shares), E (6/380 shares), F (95/380 shares), G (95/380 shares), and Defendant B (4/380 shares).

B. Of the instant land, the F and G’s co-ownership shares were inherited by 32 persons, including H, and the E’s co-ownership inherited by Defendant C.

C. As of June 29, 2018, the base appraisal value of the instant land was KRW 521,180,000. On the premise that the value of the instant land was KRW 581,180,000 (i.e., the appraised value of KRW 60,000) between the Plaintiff and H, the decision of recommending a compromise was finalized in the way that the Plaintiff compensates for co-owned property in the way that the Plaintiff compensates for the value of 32 shares (total 190/380) of H, etc.

The co-owned property partition agreement as to the land of this case was not formed between the plaintiff and the defendants, and there is no co-owned property partition agreement.

【Ground of Recognition】 The plaintiff and the defendant B: The records clearly show the facts, Gap evidence 1 through 21, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the result of appraiser I’s appraisal, the whole purport of the pleading, the purport of the pleading, and the judgment between the plaintiff and the defendant C, which are evident in the records, and the judgment of confession 2.

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may file a partition claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In light of the ratio of co-owned shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants as to the method of partition of co-owned property, the economic value in the case of division, and the contents of the decision of recommending reconciliation made between the Plaintiff and 32 persons such as H, etc., it is recognized that it is reasonable for the instant land to be owned solely by the Plaintiff, and it is recognized that acquiring the value of the said co-owned shares to the Defendants

However, the amount of compensation that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendants is in principle of equity.