1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. 사실관계 [인정근거] 갑 1∽3호증, 을 1∽4호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 망 C(1999. 10. 27. 사망)은 슬하에 원고와 피고, D, E, F을 두었다.

On November 12, 1987, the plaintiff was sentenced to the defendant, and completed the marriage report with G on November 12, 1987.

Plaintiff and G are divorce and consolation money, property division lawsuit, this court 2017dhap1088, 1095 (Counterclaim) [2016ddan3279, 32965 (Counterclaim) before re-distribution].

On October 27, 199, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff on the ground of testamentary gift on October 27, 1999, and on August 12, 2016, provisional attachment (this court 2016 business group 10095) with the amount of KRW 330 million was entered.

With respect to each one-half portion of the Ansan Telecom, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 3, 2002 with respect to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s shares, and the provisional disposition on July 26, 2016 (this Court 2016 business group10080, creditor G) was entered.

On July 28, 2016, after the registration of the above provisional disposition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly operated Masan Hostel. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking partition of co-owned property on the premise that the Plaintiff is co-ownership with the Plaintiff on August 16, 2016, on the following grounds: (a) sent to the Defendant content certification (which means the acquisition of shares, separate operation, or maintenance of a partnership business; and (b) the audit of assets).

Defendant, D, E, and F did not file a lawsuit against the Plaintiff regarding the deceased’s inherited property, such as return of legal reserve of inheritance.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that only the Masan Hostel is the same business property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Masan Real Estate is the Plaintiff’s sole property.

The Plaintiff requested the dissolution of the partnership by sending the certificate of the substance of this case and filing the principal suit of this case, and the partnership was dissolved.

The original Defendant registered the instant Moel as co-ownership in spite of the fact that it could have been registered as co-ownership at the time of registering the instant Moel, which is scheduled to be divided in the future.