A. Regarding the Plaintiffs, Defendant (Appointed Party C, Appointed E, and F, each co-owner holding the Plaintiff Company A1/8 shares, the Plaintiff Company B1/8 shares, the Plaintiff Company B 1/8 shares, the Defendant (Appointed Party) C1/4 shares, the Selected Party E1/4 shares, and the F1/4 shares, respectively.

B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant (Appointed Party) C, Appointed E, and F did not reach an agreement as to the partition of co-owned property of the instant land.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiffs and the defendant (appointed parties) C, Appointeds E, and F shared the land of this case and there was no agreement on the method of partition. Thus, the plaintiffs can file a co-owned property partition claim as to the land of this case with the court pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

B. As a matter of principle, partition of co-owned property is divided by the method of in-kind division as long as it is possible to make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 40226, Sept. 10, 2009). 2) The method of partition of co-owned property in the instant case is divided by public health room, Gap evidence 1, and the court’s commission of measurement and appraisal as to the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the use status of the instant land, the utility and shape of the instant land, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party C, E, and F, in light of the following: (a) the size in proportion to the share owned by the Plaintiffs and the share owned by the Defendant (Appointed Party C, Appointed Party C, E, and E, and consent to the instant partition in the instant case.