A. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, D, E, and F share 2/13 shares in shares of 3/13 and Defendant B’s share of 3/13, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land by the date of closing the argument in the trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may claim the partition of the land of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. In the case of dividing the jointly-owned property through a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is apprehended to substantially decrease the value thereof, the auction of the property may be ordered to divide it in kind. Here, the requirement that "it shall not be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the jointly-owned property.

(3) In light of the nature, location, area, value, etc. of the land of this case as indicated in the argument of this case, the land of this case cannot be divided into not more than 2,00§³ pursuant to Article 22(2)3 of the Farmland Act, which is the land subject to the Farmland Act, and the land of this case cannot be divided into not more than 2,00§³ pursuant to Article 22(2)3 of the same Act, and the land of this case cannot be divided into not more than 2,00§³ by the date of the closing of argument in the trial.