A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner of the instant land, the ownership transfer of which was completed with respect to 1023094/1162900 shares out of 155.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from 13 October 13, 2015 to 16 October 13, 2015 (hereinafter “instant land”) (i.e., 743206/1162900 shares) (i.e., 13984/1162900 shares 1394/1162900 shares). The Defendants are co-owners of each of the instant land (i.e., 69472/162900 shares (i., 2848/1609/1090 shares acquired due to inheritance on April 12, 198).

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, 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 Defendants jointly owned each of the instant real estate did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, for partition of the instant real estate with the court pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. As a lawsuit for partition, one lawsuit for partition is a form of co-owned property partition, and the co-ownership relation as to the objects of co-ownership is resolved by exchanging or selling shares among co-owners. As such, the court does not intend to seek a co-owned property partition, but makes a reasonable partition according to the co-owner’s share ratio according to free or discretion depending on the situation of the objects, which are the objects of co-owned property partition. The cause of co-owned relation and the co-owned share ratio and the case of division.