1. Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government connects each point of 8, 9, 10, 6, 7, and 8 of the annexed drawings among the land for factory in Seongdong-gu, Seoul.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,471㎡ of land for factory (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiff’s share is 197.3/445, the share of Defendant A is 128/445, and the share of Defendant B is 119.7/445.

B. Of the instant land, the Plaintiff owns each building on the part 1 in the ship, which connects each point of 8,9,10,6,7, and 8 of the attached Form No. 8,32.9 square meters on the ship with the order of priority among the items indicated in the attached Form No. 8,9,10,6,7, and 632.9 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “cidc part”), and the Defendant A owns each building on the part 1 in the attached Form No. 1,2,3, 10,9,8, and 391.9 square meters of the part 1 in the ship connected each point in sequence with the indication of the attached Form No. 3,4,5,6,100 in the attached Form No. 3,46.3 square meters of the part in the ship (hereinafter referred to as “bol”).

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the partition of co-owned property on the instant land.

The value of the instant land is KRW 6,300,000 per square meter as of August 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the result of the verification by this court, appraiser D and E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim a partition of the land of this case against the Defendants pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Division method (1) Division of an article jointly owned may be selected at will if the agreement is reached between co-owners. However, if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle.

In addition, if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible to divide in kind, it is possible to order the auction of the goods only when the value of the goods is likely to be reduced remarkably.

Therefore, barring such circumstances, the court can make the common property in kind according to the share ratio of each co-owner.