A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants share each real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] list (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) at the share ratio of co-owners (attached Form 2).

B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing each of the instant real estate until the closing date of the argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] The remainder of the Defendants except Defendant H: The absence of dispute, the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant H: Each entry in the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may request the Defendants, who are other co-owners, to divide the instant land.

B. Furthermore, as to the method of partition of co-owned property in this case, the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the whole entries and arguments as follows: ① the number of co-owners of each real estate in this case is 37 persons, namely, the number of co-owners of each real estate in this case, and only the plaintiff and defendant C, F, H, M, M, T, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, Z, AC, and AI 16 persons were present on the litigation in this case or the mediation date before the litigation in this case, and it is difficult for the other co-owners to reach an agreement because they did not appear, and there is no person who has expressed their opinion on the method of partition. ② On the other hand, the method of partition was discussed by dividing the land equivalent to the share of defendant D, F, H, E, etc. in kind, but it appears that each real property in fact was divided solely, in light of the size of each of the plaintiff and the defendants' share in kind and the mediation method in this case.