1. Attached Table 1 Appraisal No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 22, 22, 3, 4,07 square meters in annexed sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4,007 square meters in Kimcheon-si.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, inasmuch as the plaintiff owns the share of 912/12/12, the defendant owns the share of 300/1212, and the facts that the plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the division of co-owned property between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff, who is another co-owner of the land of this case, may file a claim for the division of the land of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff and the defendant share the land in this case in partitioned ownership, so they are unlawful as the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property. However, the sectional co-ownership relation is legally established only when there is an agreement among several persons specifying the location and size of the land, and even if co-owners agreed to divide the co-owned property and possessed and used each person by specifying the divided part from that time, the sectional co-ownership relation can be established. However, if co-owners fail to reach an agreement among themselves to exclusively vest in the co-owners, there is no room to establish such relation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71409, Apr. 29, 2005). Since each statement and image of Eul No. 1 through No. 4 (including a serial number) alone are sufficient to recognize that there was a co-ownership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant or their previous owners to specify the location and size of the land in this case, and there is no evidence to recognize otherwise, the above defendant's assertion is acceptable.

2. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property may be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but the agreement may be reached.