2. The principle is to divide the article jointly owned by the court in kind in the case of dividing the article jointly owned by the court by a trial because it did not reach an agreement even though the method may be chosen at will if the agreement is reached between the co-owners.

3. Facts recognized.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the K 367m2 and L 552m2m2 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. Defendant C, D, E, and F were divided in the judgment of the division of common property jointly owned by this Court 2017 A, group 13631, in the same manner as the instant claim was filed.

(c)

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of division by the closing date of the instant pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

4. Determination

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged as above in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of each of the instant lands between the co-owner of each of the instant land and the Defendants, and thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim with the court for partition of the instant land under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In light of the facts acknowledged on the method of subdivision, it is reasonable to divide each of the instant land in kind as described in paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 of this case.

Determinations shall be made.

5. In conclusion, each of the lands of this case is divided as ordered and so decided as per Disposition.