A. The Plaintiff owns 2/11, Defendant B 5/11, Defendant C, and D own each share of 2/11, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land.

【Reasons for Recognition Gap’s Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The partition of a co-owned property by judgment shall be made, in principle, in kind as far as it is possible to make a rational partition according to the share of each co-owner, or, if it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably due to such division, by auction;

In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the fact-finding of the court's fact-finding, the land in this case is farmland for which the agricultural infrastructure improvement project was implemented in around 2002 in accordance with the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, and the farmland in this case under the Farmland Act should be at least 2,000 square meters in size after the partition.

According to this, since the size of the plaintiff's share is about 706 square meters, in-kind division is not allowed, and there are two registrations of seizure of the shares of the defendant B.

Therefore, it is reasonable to issue an order to divide the land of this case by auction.

3. Conclusion, the land of this case is sold at auction and the proceeds from the sale are deducted from the auction expenses, and the remaining amount is distributed to the plaintiff and the defendants in their respective shares in the text.