A. On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff is a co-owner of the instant land for which the registration of ownership transfer has been made with respect to the portion of 11970/12936, out of 39 square meters of land in Incheon-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is a co-owner of the instant land, which owns the share of 966/12936, out of the instant land.

B. Although the Plaintiff intended to consult on the division of the instant land with the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of division of the instant land until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sharing the instant land did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, so the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, for partition of the instant land in accordance with Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. As a lawsuit for partition, one lawsuit for partition of co-owned property is formed, and the co-ownership of the objects of co-ownership is decided to resolve the co-ownership relation with the objects of co-ownership by exchanging or selling shares among co-owners. Thus, the court does not seek a method to seek a co-owned property but makes a reasonable partition according to the co-owner's share ratio according to the situation of the co-owner's relation or the objects of co-owned property at free discretion. It is recognized that it is reasonable to acquire the pertinent co-owned property to a specific person by comprehensively taking into account the cause of co-owned relation, the proportion of co-owned share, the economic value of co-owned property in the case of division, and the wishes of co-owners as to the method of partition, and it is recognized that acquiring