A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared 1,021 square meters in Tae-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, G, 516 square meters in the H, 793 square meters in I, and J 962 square meters in the same manner as the shares in the text.

B. There is no separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition regarding the instant land, and no agreement on division has been reached until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, one of co-owners of the land of this case, can file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the land of this case based on his co-ownership.

B. In principle, division of co-owned property by judgment shall be made in kind as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner, but in the payment division, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation of the co-owned property, use value after the division, etc.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned by the sole owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002). According to the evidence adopted earlier, the land of this case is farmland and many co-owners, and it is not appropriate to divide it in kind because it is merely 1,021m2 or 516m2. Defendant C consents to the auction division, and the remaining Defendants do not submit a written answer.