A. Defendant B received KRW 36,736,183 from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in the separate sheet.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are the successors of the deceased I (Death on January 4, 2012) who owned each of the instant real estate.

B. The Plaintiff owns 39/52 shares among each of the instant real property, and Defendant B owns 3/52 shares, Defendant C, D, F, G, and H own 2/52 shares, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing each of the instant real estate until the closing date of the instant argument.

The remaining Defendants, other than Defendant B, agreed to the method of dividing the jointly owned property as requested by the Plaintiff, but Defendant B did not reach an agreement because their location was not identified.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

B. Legal principles relating to the partition of co-owned property 1) In the event of dividing the co-owned property through a trial because co-owners fail to reach an agreement, in principle, dividing it in kind. If it is impossible to divide it in kind in kind or the value thereof is likely to be significantly reduced due to the division in kind, the court may sell the co-owned property at auction and make a payment in installments (Article 269 of the Civil Act). It is recognized that it is reasonable to acquire the co-owned property to a specific person, taking into comprehensive account the causes of the co-ownership relationship, the ratio of co-ownership to co-ownership, the economic value of the co-ownership in the case of division, and the wishes of co-owners as to the method of division, and the acquisition of the price of the co-owned property to another co-owner is deemed not detrimental to the substantial fairness among co-owners