1. The Suwon-si Court of Justice between the applicant (the quasi-Appellant) and the respondent (the quasi-Appellant).

1. The facts that the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) under the quasi-Review Protocol against the respondent (quasi-Review Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) filed an application for conciliation of partition of co-owned property under the jurisdiction of this court 2016Ma10406, Jun. 23, 2016, the conciliation date of the above case, which was the conciliation date, an attorney-at-law of the law firm rate as the applicant’s legal representative was present on June 23, 2016. The conciliation was concluded to the effect that the respondent is attached to the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list, such as the purport of the application, and that the proceeds are distributed according to co-ownership share, and the content thereof is significant in this court.

2. In full view of the overall purport of pleadings in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers if any) as well as Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter "the land of this case") is being used as a cemetery. The applicants purchased and purchased the land of this case for the purpose of using the grave or for the grave, respectively, and the specific parts of the land were specified. The applicants shall divide the land of this case in kind according to the share ratio around February 2012. The respondent prepared an agreement to the effect that the land of this case shall be divided through litigation, and there was no particular way to divide the land of this case to the respondent, and the respondent delegated the applicants to the law firm's name on May 24, 2016.