Each real estate listed in the list 1 is jointly owned by the Plaintiff 2/13 and the Defendant (Appointed Party) 8/13 and 3/13 shares, and the judgment of co-owned property partition should be rendered because agreement on the method of partition is not reached (the Defendant (Appointed Party). However, the co-owners claim that the Plaintiff would sell shares before the Plaintiff wishes co-owned property partition, so the co-owners can demand the partition of the co-owned property, and thus the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion that the co-owners can not demand the partition of the co-owned property.) Each real estate listed in the list of the annexed sheet 1 can not be divided in kind as land and above-ground buildings [the Defendant (Appointed Party) can be divided in kind. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant (Appointed Party) is the issue whether the method of partition in kind corresponds to the co-owners’ share ratio, and it cannot be known whether the method of partition in kind corresponds to the co-owners’ share ratio]. It is so ordered as per Disposition.