A. The land of this case is jointly owned by the Plaintiff in proportion to the ratio of 11.835/300, 81.98/300, 35.34/300, 35.34/300, Defendant D, E, F, and G, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Intervenor did not have an agreement prohibiting the division of the instant land, but did not reach an agreement on the method of division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may file a claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants, other co-owners, and the Intervenor taking over.

Furthermore, the method of division is examined.

The court shall, in principle, divide the article jointly owned in kind in cases of dividing the article jointly owned by the court through a trial because there is no agreement between the co-owners. The auction of the article can be ordered only when it is impossible to divide the article in kind or it is possible to divide the article in kind in kind if the value might be significantly reduced. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment to divide the article jointly owned into several articles in kind according to the ratio of shares of co-owners and to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided article.

In addition, the method of division is not a way requested by the parties, but a reasonable division is made according to the ratio of shares of co-owners according to the overall circumstances of the goods which are co-ownership relations or objects at the discretion of the court. If the goods jointly owned by many people are divided in kind within the limit of shares of the co-owners, the remaining co-owners who do not want the division are allowed to remain in co-ownership.

Da 9, 10 Certificate 10.