1. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be owned solely by the plaintiff;

2. The plaintiff is the defendant 1,234,578,750 won and the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are children of E who died on January 16, 2013.

B. On November 11, 198, the Plaintiff donated a gift from E to ① 990 square meters of FF factory site inHanam-si, ② 554 square meters of the same C factory site in the same Dong C factory site in the same Dong C factory site in the same manner as 421 square meters on October 28, 2014) and ③ the same 919 square meters of the same D factory site in the same manner (the same D factory site in the same Dong as 728 square meters on October 28, 2014 was divided into 191 square meters in the same Dong D factory site in the same manner as Do 728 square meters on October 28, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant land on November 18, 198.

C. On October 24, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the restitution of legal reserve by Suwon District Court Branch Branching 2013Kahap203990, and in the said lawsuit, the Defendant rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation to the Defendant on July 15, 2014, stating that “The Plaintiff shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant parcels of land by July 15, 2014.”

On July 28, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning 1/8 of each of the instant lands according to the decision in lieu of the above conciliation.

E. The Plaintiff owned a maintenance factory building on each of the instant land, and used the entire land of this case as the site of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, which caused the partition of co-owned property, shared 7/8 shares among each of the instant lands, and the Defendant shared 1/8 shares among each of the instant lands, as seen in the facts established earlier. Since the Plaintiff, the co-owner of each of the instant lands, and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant land, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendant for partition of the said land.

(b).