1. The defendant shall independently own the real estate listed in the attached list;

2. The defendant shall pay KRW 9,164,00 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant share the real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in their shares in 1580/2584 and 24304/2584, respectively.

B. Until the closing date of pleadings, the parties to the instant case did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, as one of the co-owners of the instant real estate, may claim a partition of the instant real estate jointly owned by this court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act against the Defendant, who is the remaining co-owners based on his co-ownership.

B. The method of partition of co-owned property is a litigation for formation, and the co-owned property is the object of co-ownership by exchanging or selling shares among co-owners, and the co-owned relation is resolved as to the object of co-owned property. As such, the court shall make a reasonable partition according to the co-owner's share ratio according to the co-owned relation or all the circumstances of the object, without being able to seek a partition of co-owned property,

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da27819 delivered on December 7, 1993, and Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219 delivered on September 9, 197, etc.). In principle, a partition of co-owned property by a trial shall be made in kind as far as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. However, the requirement that “it may not be divided in kind” is not physically strict, but it shall include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, and use value after the division.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). Moreover, the cause of sharing and the proportion of co-ownership share.