(a)board connecting each point in the annexed sheet No. 1 to 4, and No. 1.

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff owned 46,673m2 shares in H-gun, Youngnam-gun (hereinafter "the real estate in this case"), 439/472 shares, 9/472 shares in defendant Eul, and defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant C") shares 7/472 shares, defendant D, E, E, F, and G shares 17/188 shares (17/4 shares in the network I's 17/472 shares each), respectively. It is recognized that defendant D, E, F, and G did not give any answer as to the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property in this case against the defendants.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendants, co-owner of the real estate of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of co-owned property as to the real estate of this case, so the plaintiff can seek partition of the real estate

B. Division 1) Division of the co-owned property may be selected at will if there is an agreement among the co-owners, but if the co-owned property is divided by judgment because it does not reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value of the property is considerably reduced if it is divided in kind, the auction of the property may be ordered. The lawsuit for partition of co-owned property is a lawsuit to form a co-owned property, which means to resolve the co-ownership relation as to the object of the co-owned property through the exchange of shares between the co-owners or the purchase and sale of the property. Thus, the court shall make a rational partition according to the co-owners’ share ratio according to the co-owners’ share ratio without being able to seek the co-owned property partition at free discretion (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da27819, Dec. 7, 1993; 97Da1219, Sept. 219, 197).