2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, as co-owners of each real estate of this case, requested the Defendants, who are other co-owners, to divide each real estate of this case in kind, as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff sought co-owned property partition on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners of each real estate of this case.

According to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 13, and 14, the plaintiff and the defendants are members of the F apartment Housing Reconstruction Project Association, and they share the Songpa-gu Seoul Family Reconstruction Project Association's shares of plaintiff 1/2 and the defendants 1/4, respectively. However, it is recognized that the number of houses corresponding to each of the real estate of this case among the newly constructed commercial buildings after reconstruction was allocated as shares of plaintiff 1/2 and the defendants 1/4.

However, there is no evidence to prove that registration of preservation of ownership of each real estate of this case was made and the sectional ownership of each real estate of this case was established, and there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff and the defendants shared ownership of each real estate of this case.

[Plaintiff and Defendants do not have the current right to each of the instant real estate, but seems to have been merely the obligatory right to the F apartment house reconstruction and rearrangement project association. Therefore, the lawsuit of partition of co-owned property of this case against each of the instant real estate is unlawful as it is filed by a person who is not the co-owner, who is not the co-owner.

3. The instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.