A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants share each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each land of this case”) at the ratio of shares indicated in the column of co-ownership in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. Of the co-owners of each of the instant lands, Defendant G, I, K, and N did not reach an agreement with the Plaintiff on the method of partition of each of the instant lands due to the unknown whereabouts, and the remaining Defendants did not present any specific method of partition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of each of the lands of this case, may claim the partition of each of the lands of this case against the Defendants, who are co-owners of the other co-owners.

B. 1) In a case where a partition of co-owned property is divided in kind with a judgment, if it is impossible to divide the co-owned property in kind or if the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced, an auction of the property may be ordered, and 'undivided in kind' requirement is not physically strict interpretation, but it includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the property in kind in light of the nature, location, size, utilization situation, use value after the partition, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40219, 4026, Sept. 10, 2009). 2) The following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking into account the health stand, the purport of the above recognition and arguments, namely, in light of the location and size of each land of this case, and the ratio of shares and interests of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is impossible to divide the land in kind required by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc.