1.O 648 square meters in racing-si, each of which is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 18, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, and 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants inherited 1/4 shares owned by the Plaintiff 2/4 shares and Defendant B 1/4 shares, and the remainder Defendants except Defendant B, who owned the net P (Death October 24, 1996) as shown in the attached Form No. 1 and inherited shares, and owned each share in the current co-ownership column in the attached Table.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land.

【Defendant K: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) excluding Defendant K: The remaining Defendants: Confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. 1) Co-owners may file a claim for partition of co-owned property (main sentence of Article 268(1) of the Civil Act). If a consultation on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may file a claim for partition with a court (Article 269 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is a co-owner, may file a claim for partition against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 268(1) and Article 269 of the Civil Act.

B. The method of partition of co-owned properties 1) The method of partition can be chosen at will, but if the co-owned properties are divided by judgment because agreement is not reached, it is in principle divided in kind. If it is impossible to divide them in kind or if it is divided in kind, the value may be reduced remarkably. In this case, the land in this case is divided in kind, and there is no special circumstance as to the specific method of partition of the land in this case. Thus, as to the detailed method of partition of the land in this case, health room, Gap evidence 1-1, No. 1-2, No. 2-1, No. 2-2, No. 3-1, No. 3-1, No. 3-1, Dec. 2, 200.