A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners of the 3,830.1 square meter (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

C. The instant land cannot be partitioned except for the case falling under any of Article 22(2)1 through 4 of the Farmland Act as farmland for which an agricultural infrastructure improvement project was implemented. In particular, according to Article 22(2)2 of the same Act, if the area of each parcel after subdivision does not exceed 2,00 square meters, it shall not be divided.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the fact-finding results of this court's inquiry about the following cases, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If a co-owner who created the co-owned property partition right fails to reach agreement on the method of partition, co-owner may file a claim for partition with the court. If the co-owner is unable to divide the co-owned property in kind or the value thereof is likely to significantly decrease due to the division, the court may order the auction of the goods. Thus, the plaintiff, as co-owner, may file a claim for partition against the defendants, who are other co-owners, for the land of this case pursuant to Articles

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property according to a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the shares of each co-owner, but if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such possibility, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered to divide the price by the method of payment division.

The requirement is not a physically strict interpretation, but a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, the situation of use, and the use value after the division.