Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may claim a partition of the instant land against the Defendants, other co-owners.

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

2. As to the method of partition of co-owned land in this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the part (A) part 233 square meters (hereinafter “1-A part”) in the attached Form 1 drawing is owned by the Plaintiff, and that the part (b) part 1,110 square meters (hereinafter “1-B part”) is jointly owned by the Defendants, and the Defendants claim in kind division of the part (B) 1,110 square meters in the attached Form 2 drawing (hereinafter “2-B part”) is jointly owned by the Defendants and the part (c) 23 square meters in the part (hereinafter “2-C part”) is owned by the Plaintiff.

The facts of recognition under paragraph (1), evidence Nos. 2-5, evidence Nos. 1-11 (including paper numbers), and the overall purport of pleadings are considered comprehensively.

The Plaintiff purchased 4/23 shares of the instant land from J in order to secure access roads necessary for the development of H and I land adjacent to the instant land.

The J owned a warehouse, etc. on the ground of the part 2-C of the instant land. At the time of the said purchase, the Plaintiff agreed that “J shall divide the land to be responsible and the construction of a road to its desired location,” and “J shall remove the land warehouse, etc. without any condition on the ground when the Plaintiff was divided into two-C parts in the joint-owned property division lawsuit.”

However, the above special agreement alone cannot be deemed to have agreed to be divided by specifying the part 1-A or 2-C between J.