There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of dividing the instant land.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Judgment on the partition claim of the article jointly owned

A. Article 268(1) of the Civil Act, in which the claim for partition of the article jointly owned, can be claimed by a co-owner for the partition of the article jointly owned.

However, Article 269(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A co-owner may file a claim with the court for subdivision, if the agreement on the method of subdivision does not lead to an agreement on the method of subdivision.”

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the jointly owned property pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.

B. As a matter of principle, in a case where an article jointly owned is divided in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the court shall divide the article in kind (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da27819, Dec. 7, 1993; 2004Da10183, Jul. 22, 2004; 2004Da10183, 10190, etc.). The method of division is not a method requested by the parties, but a reasonable division is made according to the co-owner’s share ratio according to the co-ownership or the overall circumstances of the article, which is the object.

In the case of land partitioning, in principle, the area of land to be acquired by each co-owner shall be equal to the ratio of the share of the land. However, it is not necessarily necessary to divide the land by such method, but if the form, location, the situation of the use of the land, or the economic value is not equal, the economic value shall be equal to the share ratio in consideration of such overall circumstances.