A. As of the date of the closing of argument, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant land at the following ratio of shares.

Co-owner’s share ratio Plaintiff A 2480/7438, Defendant B 3270/7438, Defendant C 1182/7438, Defendant D 506/7438

B. As to the land of this case, there was no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. At the time of the conclusion of the pleadings of this case, the method of partition of the land of this case was divided in kind as prescribed in paragraph (1) of this Article, and there was an approximate agreement between co-owners to adjust the excess or excess of the economic value in cash, but there was no final agreement on the specific amount

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the instant land, and there was no final agreement on the method of partition between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, so the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of co-owned property as to the instant land pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

B. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property 1-related legal principles may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement. However, in the case of dividing the co-owned property through a trial because no agreement is reached, in principle, dividing it in kind. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the auction of the property can be ordered only when the value of the property might be reduced remarkably.

Therefore, barring such circumstances, the court shall render a judgment recognizing the sole ownership of each co-owner for the goods divided into several parts in kind according to the ratio of shares of each co-owner, and the method of division shall be sought by the parties concerned.