1.each land listed in the Schedule of Attached 1 Real Estate;

A. The land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 in the annexed sheet No. 1 is set forth by Defendant B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) according to the shares of co-ownership listed in the corresponding column of the separate sheet No. 2.

B. There was no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on each of the instant land, and there was no agreement on the partition method of each of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each of the lands of this case, may seek co-owned property partition against the Defendants, other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, the method of division is examined.

The court shall, in principle, divide the article jointly owned in kind in cases of dividing the article jointly owned by the court through a trial because there is no agreement between the co-owners. The auction of the article can be ordered only when it is impossible to divide the article in kind or it is possible to divide the article in kind in kind if the value might be significantly reduced. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment to divide the article jointly owned into several articles in kind according to the ratio of shares of co-owners and to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided article.

In addition, the method of division is not a way requested by the parties, but a reasonable division is made according to the ratio of shares of co-owners according to the overall circumstances of the goods which are co-ownership relations or objects at the discretion of the court. If the goods jointly owned by many people are divided in kind within the limit of shares of the co-owners, the remaining co-owners who do not want the division are allowed to remain in co-ownership.

In this case, the Plaintiff attached Form 1.