In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendants shared one-fourth share of each of 1/4 shares of E,071 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case"), and it is recognized that no agreement has been reached between the plaintiff and the defendants on the method of dividing the land of this case by the closing date of pleadings of this case, and there is no division prohibition agreement on the land of this case.

According to the above facts established as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a partition claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the land of this case is adjacent to the north-west road and adjacent to the south-west road with the width of 3 meters wide, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are divided into two parts, including the surface abutting on the road. ② On July 9, 2019, the Plaintiff and Defendant D appeared at the date for pleading and agreed to the division as described in paragraph (1). The commission of surveying appraisal was made by reflecting such intent, ③ there was no opinion on specific division method after the filing of the lawsuit of this case; ④ In light of the location, use status, area, etc. of the land of this case, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case in kind by the method as described in paragraph (1) of this Article.

In conclusion, we decide to divide the land of this case as above and decide as per Disposition.