A. As to the land of this case, the Plaintiff owns 495/1,924 shares, Defendant B owns 678/1,924 shares, Defendant C’s 331/1,924 shares, and Defendant D owns 420/1,924 shares, respectively.

B. The instant land is located in a planned control area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and a quasi-permanent conservation area under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and is abutting on the road only on the current status of part of the said land (Northwest direction), and the cadastral boundary line of the north part of the land does not adjoin.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the partition of co-owned property until the closing date of the instant argument.

【Basis for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 or the purport of whole pleadings and arguments】

2. Determination

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.

B. A method of partition of co-owned property 1) In a case where the co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind with the value, the auction of the property may be ordered, and “the co-owned property shall not be divided in kind” in this context is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide it in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the division, etc. of the co-owned property or it is not physically impossible to divide it in kind (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 200).

However, in consideration of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts of recognition and the evidence of recognition, namely, ① gradient different from the shape of each part of the instant land and accessibility to each part after division.