There was no agreement on the method of partition of co-owned property between the plaintiff and the defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant B: A without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a branch number), and each purport of the whole pleadings: The defendant U.S.A., the purport of the whole pleadings: According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff as co-ownership right holder of the land of this case, may request the defendants to divide the land of this case in accordance with Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

However, as seen above, the agreement on partition of co-owned property between the plaintiff and the defendants was not reached, so the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property as to the land in this case has merit.

As to the method of partition of co-owned property, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① some of the land of this case may arise when the land of this case is divided in kind as a blind land; ② considering the individual area or shape of the land of this case; ② the size of shares owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants; and the location of opening a road for the use and passage of the land of this case, etc., the land of this case appears to be difficult to fairly divide in kind to the Plaintiff and the Defendants according to their respective shares; thus, the method of partition in kind is deemed difficult or inappropriate to maintain the utility value of the land of this case, and thus, it is the most fair and reasonable method to divide the price by auction.

Therefore, the land of this case is put to an auction and the auction cost is deducted from the price, respectively.