A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B shared 826/2,165 shares, and Defendant D’s share at the ratio of 513/2,165 shares, respectively.

B. As of the date of the closing of the instant argument, no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff may claim a partition against the Defendants, another co-owner, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Division 1) The method of partition of co-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided through a trial because it does not reach an agreement, the court shall in principle divide it in kind. The court may order auction of the property only when it is impossible to divide it in kind or if the value of the property is considerably reduced if it is divided in kind. Thus, barring such circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several items in kind in accordance with the share ratio of each co-owner. The method of partition shall be a reasonable partition according to the share ratio of the co-owner according to the co-owner's co-owner's co-owned relation or all the circumstances of the things which are the objects of the co-owner's co-owned property at the discretion, rather than by the method requested by the parties.