1. The defendants receive money from the plaintiff as stated in the "amount of compensation" stated in the separate sheet.

1. As to the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff owned shares in May 5, 1013, and the Defendants owned shares in the same manner as indicated in the attached Table. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant land, the Plaintiff may file a claim with the Defendants for partition of the instant land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

As a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property, it means to resolve the co-ownership relation against the objects of co-ownership through the exchange or sale of shares between co-owners. As such, the court shall make a reasonable partition according to the share ratio of co-owners depending on the co-ownership relation or the overall circumstances of the objects, regardless of the method requested by the claimant for partition of co-owned property, at free discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da27819, Dec. 7, 1993; 97Da18219, Sept. 9, 197). Therefore, if multiple persons divide shares, in principle, the area of land acquired by each co-owner should be equal to the share ratio. However, if the form or location of the co-owned property to be divided, and if the use or economic value is not equal, it shall be allowed to divide in kind, in consideration of all the above circumstances, to have the economic value equivalent to the share ratio, and if the economic value is not equal, it shall be allowed to divide in kind.

Furthermore, the sharing relationship is the common relationship.