A. The Plaintiff shares 9/121 shares, Defendant B’s 6/121 shares, Defendant C, D, E, and F shares each of 4/121 shares with respect to the 1,573 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si G (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant lawsuit was instituted since the agreement on partition of co-owned property between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was not reached.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, can seek a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, other co-owners.

In full view of various circumstances revealed in the pleadings, including the fact that Defendant B, C, D, and E, other than Defendant F, who had been served with a copy of the complaint and did not appear on the date for pleading, did not object to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking spot partition. In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to divide the instant land as indicated in the text.

3. Conclusion, we decide to divide the instant land in the aforementioned manner.