A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) at the ratio of 1/3.

B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each land of this case until the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged above, since the Plaintiff and the Defendants, who were co-owners of each of the lands of this case, did not reach an agreement on the method of partition, the Plaintiff, as co-owners of the above land, may claim the partition against the Defendants as co-owners.

3. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property may be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owners divide the jointly-owned property through a trial due to the failure to reach an 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 price can be reduced significantly, the auction of the goods can be ordered. Thus, barring such circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind at the share ratio of each co-owner, and the method of division shall be a reasonable partition according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court, rather than by the method requested by the parties, according to the co-owner's share ratio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219, Sept. 9, 1997). In light of the above legal principles, in this case, health class No. 3-1, evidence No. 1, and the following purport of the entire list of land: