1. The sectional co-ownership relationship between co-owners is legally established only when there is an agreement with many persons to specify the location and area of a certain piece of land to divide the co-ownership, and even if co-owners agreed to divide the co-ownership and have occupied and used each part by specifying the sectional ownership from that time, the sectional co-ownership relationship may be established. However, in cases where co-owners did not reach an agreement with each other to exclusively vest a specific portion in the co-owner, there is no room to establish such relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71409, Apr. 29, 2005, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below rejected all the evidence as shown in the argument that the co-owners constituted a sectional co-ownership relationship with the purport that the part of the land in this case belongs to the non-party's sole ownership, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim, while there are some improper points in its reasoning, it is just in its conclusion, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)