A. The instant land is co-ownership by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and each co-ownership share is as follows.

Defendant C 4,884/122,100 5 Defendant C 5,884/122,100 Defendant A5,439/122,100 Defendant D 10,878/122,100 Defendant D 6 Defendant D 10,878/122,100 73,582/122,100 Defendant E- 5,439/122,100, Defendant B 10, Defendant B 10,878/12,100

B. The instant land is a narrow and long-breadth road, and G, H, etc. managed by Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is established.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit because it did not consult with the Defendants on the partition of co-owned property.

【Ground for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, B or 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owners divide the co-owned property through a trial due to the failure to reach agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the court may order the auction of the goods and make a payment in installments only when the value might be reduced remarkably.

As to the instant case, since the instant land can be divided in kind, it is necessary to divide the instant land in kind. Furthermore, in full view of the present status of the instant land and the intent of the parties (in the case of co-owners other than the Defendant C whose present whereabouts are unknown, the agreement was reached to divide as indicated in the order), it is reasonable to divide the portion belonging to G and H managed by the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the above Defendant, and to divide the remainder to the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants in the manner of devolving the area ratio.

3. In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by dividing the land of this case as ordered.