A. The Plaintiff shares shares 5,505/27,040 shares, Defendant B, C, D, E, and F, each of 3,670/27,040 shares, and Defendant G shares 3,185/27,040 shares, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate, which is public property, by the closing date of the instant pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, as co-owner of the instant real estate, did not reach agreement on the method of partition. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff may claim the partition of the instant real estate, which is jointly owned by the Defendant based on his co-ownership, against the Defendant, barring any special circumstance. 2) As to this, Defendant G asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property is unreasonable, since the instant real estate

In the so-called sectional co-ownership relationship in which two or more persons agree to specify the location and area of one parcel of land and they register as co-ownership by the co-ownership. Each sectional co-owner disposes of his/her own right to another person, there may be cases where he/she disposes of a specific part, which is the object of sectional ownership, and transfers his/her co-ownership shares on the registry as a table for the specific part, and disposes of them as a true co-ownership share for the whole parcel of land as stated in the registry. Of this, in the case of the former, the co-ownership relationship with the third person shall be succeeded to. However, in the latter case, the third person acquires co-ownership for the entire piece of real estate and the sectional co-ownership relationship terminates (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da18634, Jun. 8, 1993).