A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant site”) shares 2/5 shares in the Plaintiff and 3/5 shares in the Defendant C, and the real estate listed in the same list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) constructed on the ground are owned by the Plaintiff at the share of 5/13 shares and 2/13 shares in the Defendants.

B. As to the division of the instant site between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, no agreement has been reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on the division of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, or the purport of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, as a whole, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may claim the division of the instant land to Defendant C, a co-owner of the other co-owner, and the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant building, to the Defendants, the other co-owners, respectively. (2) As to this, Defendant C’s assertion that, on July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the partition of co-owned property of this case with Defendant C, a co-owner of the instant land, was abuse of rights, on the ground that the Plaintiff, his mother, Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na18661 (main claim), 2010Na18678 (Counterclaim) against the Plaintiff on July 19, 2010, delayed the registration of transfer, while the conciliation to implement the registration of ownership transfer for 2/5 shares of the instant land was established, but the Plaintiff’s claim for the partition of co-owned property of this case cannot be said to constitute abuse of rights.

B. Co-owned property partition by one trial on the method of partition shall be, in principle, divided in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner, or if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind or if it is possible to divide in kind, the value thereof may be reduced remarkably.