1. At the same time, the Plaintiff received KRW 103,380,805 from Defendant B, and at the same time, attached Tables 1 and 2 to Defendant B.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B own 1/9 shares and 8/9 shares of each real estate listed in [Attachment List 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff and Defendant C own 1/9 shares and 8/9 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter “instant two real estate”).

2. Determination

A. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendants, a co-owner of each of the instant real estate, did not reach agreement as to the method of partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff may file a claim for partition of the instant real estate.

B. According to the method of partition of co-owned property, the method of partition may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but in the case of dividing the co-owned property through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall, in principle, divide it in kind. The court may issue an order for auction of the property only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or when the value might be significantly reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind in accordance with the share ratio of co-owners, and each co-owner's sole ownership for the divided property according to the co-owner's share ratio. In addition, the method of partition shall not be determined by the method requested by the parties, but shall be reasonably divided according to the share ratio of co-owners according to the court's discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da23428, Mar. 26, 2015).