공유물분할
1. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the portion indicated in the separate sheet 60 square meters is 1/2 of Defendant E, F, G, H, and I, respectively, 1/8.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the real estate of this case is owned jointly by the plaintiff and the defendants according to the ratio of shares indicated in the separate sheet, there is no separate partition prohibition agreement as to the real estate of this case, and there is no separate partition prohibition agreement as to the real estate of this case between the defendants other than the defendant C and the plaintiff, who were served with copies, etc. of the complaint of this case through public announcement as shown in the separate sheet. According to the above agreement, the part indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 661/3,306, which the defendant C would acquire ownership solely compared to the co-ownership of the defendant C, although it does not seem unreasonable in light of the current status, surrounding circumstances, and the part acquired by other co-owners.
Therefore, according to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants (excluding Defendant C), the portion indicated in the annexed drawing of the instant real estate is owned by Defendant E, F, G, H, and I, and the part 660 square meters is divided into the sole ownership of Defendant C, and the part 1,986 square meters is divided into the Plaintiff’s sole ownership of the part 660 square meters. The co-ownership on the portion 660 square meters in common, reflecting the existing co-ownership of the land, should be jointly owned by Defendant E, Defendant F, G, H, and I in proportion to 1/8 shares, respectively.
2. In conclusion, the real estate of this case is to be divided in kind as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.