A. The Plaintiff shared 153.5/578 shares, net NN, Defendant C’s 48/578 shares, Defendant DD’s 36/578 shares, Defendant E’s 16/578 shares, Defendant F’s 72/578 shares, Defendant F’s 72/578 shares, and Defendant G owned 5.5/578 shares.

B. The deceased on February 22, 1994, and the deceased on October 9, 2008, the deceased on February 22, 1994, and the deceased on October 9, 2008, and the deceased’s heir, who is currently children, there are Defendant H, B, I, J, K, and L.

(The other child P died on January 14, 1956). On October 17, 2018, Defendant H, B, I, J, K, and L filed a transfer registration for each share of the instant land on the ground of inheritance (i.e., the net N’s share 96/578 x 1/6).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, as co-owner of the instant land, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition with the Defendants, who are other co-owners, as co-owners, as to the method of partition of co-owned property. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of

B. The method of dividing the jointly-owned property (1) can be selected at will when the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the jointly-owned property is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, in principle, the court shall divide it in kind. The auction of the article can be ordered only when the value of the article is likely to be significantly reduced if it is unable to divide it in kind or if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment to divide the jointly-owned property into several articles in kind and to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided article in accordance with the share ratio of each co-owner (see Supreme Court Decision 204. Jul. 7, 2004).