A. As to the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff shared 8/10 shares, and Defendant B and C shared 1/10 shares, respectively.

B. There was no partition prohibition agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant land, and there was no agreement on the partition method of the instant land.

C. The land of this case belongs to an urban area or natural green area.

2. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land under Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

As to the method of partition of co-owned property, in principle, it is possible to divide the co-owned property in kind with the one in which a reasonable partition can be made according to the share of each co-owner. If it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind with the one in which the value may be reduced remarkably, the auction of the goods may be ordered (Article 269 of the Civil Act). The requirement that "it may not be divided in kind" in the price division is not physically strict interpretation, but physically strict interpretation is not to include cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use situation of the co-owned property, use value after the division, etc.

(2) In the case of a co-owner's in-kind, "if the value of the property is likely to be reduced significantly if the property is divided in kind" also includes the case where the value of the property to be owned independently by the co-owner is likely to be reduced significantly than the value of the property before the division.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). In this case, according to Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 24 of the Urban Planning Ordinance at Chicago-si, land is divided within a green area.