A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land of 11,915 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seosan-si N, Seosan-si as indicated in the separate shares of co-ownership.

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.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, 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, may claim a partition of the land of this case against the Defendants based on his co-ownership.

B. The partition of co-owned property by judgment shall be made by the method of in-kind division as long as a reasonable partition can be made according to the shares of each co-owner. However, if it is impossible to divide in-kind or even if it is possible in-kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such fact, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered to divide the price by the method of price division.

In addition, the requirement that the "in-kind cannot be divided into goods" is not physically strict interpretation, but formally, it is possible to divide the goods into goods.

Even if it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article jointly owned in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value after the division, share ratio of co-owners, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). C.

However, if the purport of the entire pleading is added to the entry of the evidence No. 5, the land of this case can be divided only where the area of each parcel is not less than 2,00 square meters after division pursuant to Article 22 (2) 3 of the Farmland Act (Prevention of Subdivision Ownership of Farmland) as farmland for which a project for improving agricultural production infrastructure was implemented. The area is limited to 11,915 square meters, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants reached 14.