A. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared Plaintiff 15/112, Defendant B, and C, and Defendant D67/336 shares in proportion to their shares, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the division of the instant land.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

A. According to the facts, the Plaintiff may seek the partition of the instant land against the Defendants pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

(b) Co-owned property partition by judgment shall be made by the method of spot partition, or by the method of spot partition, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or even if it is possible in kind, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such cause, if the auction of the co-owned property is ordered, and the proceeds thereof shall be divided by the method of installment;

"The price is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division" includes not only the case where the exchange value of the whole co-owned property is significantly reduced due to the in-kind division but also the case where the value of the part to be owned independently due to the in-kind division is significantly reduced compared to the share value in the co-owners before the partition of co-owned property.

Therefore, even if it is possible to divide the article in kind formally, if it is not possible to divide the article in kind according to the ratio of shares of each co-owner in consideration of the location, area and surrounding roads, use value, price, ownership ratio of co-owner and use and profit-making status of each co-owner, it is not necessary to divide the article in kind, but to divide the article jointly owned by the method of payment in kind.

In addition, when co-owned land is divided in kind according to the co-ownership ratio, if it is impossible to construct the land on the ground because one co-owner is too small.