A. The Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant 10-K Reconstruction Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) seeking a transfer of part of 902 square meters of the Nannam-si Nannam-si, Hannam-si (U.S. District Court 2004Gadan127444), and on December 17, 2004 during the said lawsuit, the Defendant Union concluded a mediation to the effect that the registration of ownership transfer for 23/902 shares of the land before the said division would be completed by the Defendant Association. Accordingly, the Defendant Association completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said shares with the O around that time.

B. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2006, theO donated the above shares to the Plaintiff as her mother, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

C. After that, the land was divided on January 5, 2007, Nannam-si, Nannam-si, 902 square meters prior to the said subdivision, and the land was one of the land of 879 square meters and Ma large 23 square meters (the land in two lots is each of the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1; hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”). In addition, when referring to the land, the land was omitted.

At present, each of the instant lands is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the proportion of “the original shares (the Defendants) and 115460/40 (the Plaintiff)” listed in the list of attached Table 3.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 12 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property is co-owners of each of the instant lands, and thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, other co-owners pursuant to Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.

On the other hand, Defendant

5.F;

6. G argues that each of the instant lands is not allowed to claim a partition as a site right of an apartment. However, as there is no submission of evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant lands is a site right of an apartment, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion is difficult to accept.

B. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the method of partition of co-owned property lies in the previous conciliation process.