A. The instant land is owned by the Plaintiff at the respective shares of 400/649 and the Defendant at the respective shares of 249/649.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement as to the method of partition of co-owned property.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1, 2, and 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the Plaintiff, as a co-owner of the land in this case, may claim a partition of the land in this case to the Defendant pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

However, as seen above, the agreement on partition of co-owned property between the defendant and the co-owned property cannot be reached. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property on the land of this case

B. Co-owned property partition by one trial on the method of partition shall be, in principle, by the method of in-kind division as long as a rational partition can be made according to the shares of each co-owner. However, even if it is impossible in-kind division or it is possible in form, if the price might be reduced remarkably due to such act, it shall be done by the method of so-called payment division by ordering the auction of the co-owned property to divide the price.

The requirement that a "in-kind can not be divided" is not a 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, area, utilization status, and the use value after the division.

It also includes cases where, even if a co-owner's co-owner's act of division in kind, the value of the portion to be owned by him/her is likely to be significantly reduced compared to the value of the share before the division in kind.

Therefore, it is formally divided in kind.