1. The 1,2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 1 of the attached Form 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 1 of the Daegu Seo-gu

The Plaintiff shared 1/2 and the network E share of each share of 1/2 in the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C Dae-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”). As long as the Plaintiff died on June 26, 1986 and transferred the instant real estate to F, the Defendant (Appointed Party), B, the Appointed Party B, G, H, and I (hereinafter “Defendants”) according to the ratio of shares in the attached list of the designated parties, and there is no dispute between the parties, and there is no agreement on division among the co-owners of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff may request the Defendants to divide the instant real estate as co-owners.

However, if a co-owner's co-owned property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall, in principle, divide the jointly-owned property in kind as far as it can be reasonably divided according to the share of each co-owner. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the price can be divided by ordering the auction of the property. If it is divided in kind with an article jointly-owned by several people, the remaining co-owners who do not want the division may be allowed within the share limit of the co-owner and remaining as co-owners (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da2728, Nov. 12, 1991). The method of division is not the method requested by the parties but the share ratio of the co-owner according to the court's discretion and the overall situation of the article, which is the object of the co-owner's share (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da27228, Jul. 22, 2004>