A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants owned the same proportion as indicated in the separate sheet of share in the attached Form 825 square meters of Q25 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. No agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the land of this case until the date of closing the argument of this case.

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

2. According to the facts acknowledged above, since the agreement on the method of partition between the plaintiff and the defendants, who are co-owners of the land of this case, was not constituted, the plaintiff is entitled to file a partition claim against the defendants as co-owners of the land of this case.

3. Division of the method of partition of co-owned property can be decided at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, the price can be reduced considerably, the auction of the goods can be ordered. Thus, barring such circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several goods in kind in proportion to the shares of each co-owner, and the method of division shall be a reasonable partition according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court, rather than by the method requested by the parties, according to the co-owner's common relation or the overall situation of the goods which are the objects thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219, Sept. 9, 197). In light of the above legal principle, health class, evidence No. 1 and the following purport of the entire land as a whole.