A. 6,294 square meters prior to H at the time of residence (hereinafter “instant land”) are registered as being jointly owned by the Plaintiff and Defendant C, respectively, at the share of 69/238 shares and 100/238 shares on the registry.

B. Around May 21, 1996, I died and succeeded to the shares of Defendant B, D, E, F, and G, who are the children of I, one-fifth each.

C. Until the date of closing the argument in this case, there was no agreement on the method of dividing the land in this case between the Plaintiff and the entire Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

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 Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. Co-owned property partition method 1) Division of co-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, in principle, the court shall divide it in kind. The auction of the property can be ordered only when the value of the property is considerably reduced if it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall make a judgment that recognizes the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several items in kind at the share of each co-owner, and the method of division shall be determined at the discretion of the court, not by the parties but by the reasonable division according to the share ratio of the co-owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da101832, Jul. 22, 2004).

Gap 1.