A. In fact, 1/2 shares in each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) were registered as D and owned since April 20, 1989. However, the Defendants inherited shares in D through consultation and division on March 15, 201 with respect to shares in 2/8 of the instant real estate. As to shares in Defendant B in the future and 2/8, Defendant C, the Busan Western District Court’s Office of Registry No. 27570 as of August 9, 201, received on March 15, 2011, the ownership transfer registration for shares in the instant real estate was completed due to inheritance through consultation and division, and the remaining shares except 1/2 shares in each of the instant real estate owned by the said D, or the Defendants did not want to have the ownership transfer registration for each of the said real estate as of January 16, 2013 as to each of the instant real estate owned by the said Defendants, and each of the said Defendants’ respective shares in the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ respective real estate were not divideded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

B. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendants, who owned each of the instant real estate in question, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of each of the instant real estate.

C. In principle, partition of co-owned property based on a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind so that each co-owner can make a rational partition according to his/her share. However, the requirement of “undivided in kind” is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation. The nature, location, size, use situation, and post-division of the co-owned property.