A. Regarding the instant land, Plaintiff A shares 86.37/478.3; Plaintiff B shares 57.58/478.3; Plaintiff C shares 28.79/478.3; Plaintiff E shares 115.16/478.3; Plaintiff D shares 16.85/478.3; Defendant Korea shares 50.9/478.3 shares; Defendant F shares 25.45/478.3 shares; Defendant H shares 16.85/478.3 shares; Defendant A shares 25.45/478.3 shares; Defendant A shares 25.45/478.3 shares; Defendant B’s share 25.45/478.3 shares; and Defendant A’s Intervenor (hereinafter “acquisition Intervenor”) share 54.9/478.3 shares.

B. The Plaintiffs demanded the Defendants to divide the instant land. The Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Intervenor did not reach an agreement on the method of division until the closing date of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding that the co-owned property partition claim was established, the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the acquiring intervenors sharing the land of this case did not reach an agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the plaintiffs, co-owners of the land of this case, can file a claim against the defendants and the acquiring intervenors, who are other co-owners.

B. In principle, partition of co-owned property according to a judgment on the method of partition of co-owned property shall be made in kind as long as a rational partition can be made according to the shares of each co-owner, but if it is impossible to divide in kind or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such possibility, the auction of the co-owned property shall be ordered to divide the price by the method of payment division.

On the other hand, the requirement is not to be interpreted physically strictly, but to include the case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation, use value after the division, etc. of the article jointly owned.

(c).