A. On September 13, 2010, the Defendants andO acquired shares of 36/250 on October 12, 201 due to the compulsory sale by official auction for the aboveO shares on the grounds of inheritance on July 6, 1984 by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and the Defendants acquired shares of 36/250 on the grounds of the compulsory sale by official auction for the aboveO shares on October 12, 201.

(2) Meanwhile, there was no agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on the method of dividing the pertinent land into common property.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the plaintiffs, as co-owned share holders of the land of this case, can seek co-owned property partition against the defendants, who are the remaining co-owned share holders of the land of this case.

As to the method of partition of the specific article jointly owned, the above facts and the result of the on-site inspection by this court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① Defendant C, D, K, and L agreed on the method of spot division of the Plaintiffs’ assertion on June 25, 2013. Defendant E, F, G, H, I, and J consented to the Plaintiff’s spot division itself, but they want an auction division only among the Defendants who are related to each other. ② The area of the land in this case is reasonable and most of the areas of the land in this case are difficult to follow due to the method of division. The method of division in the main text permits the Plaintiffs to the least area necessary for passage, including the adjacent portion of the road, and it does not seem to be particularly disadvantageous to the Defendants. ③ The parts of the land in this case are graves of the Defendants, and the method of division is not finalized if they are related to relatives.