A survey on the cadastral status in attached Table 1 among the lands listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table.

A. The Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the successors of Defendant G are sharing each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as follows:

Co-owners’ shares Plaintiff A/2 Plaintiff C 660/6390 Defendant D 297/6390 Defendant A297/6390 Defendant G (297/6390) land: 1314/6390 land: J(2) land, the number of successors to Defendant G, 106.18/6390: 247.82/6390

B. At present, the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the successors of Defendant G did not reach a full agreement on the method of dividing each of the above lands.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap 1-3 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiffs, as co-owners of the instant land, may claim the partition of the instant land against the Defendants and the successors of Defendant G, who are other co-owners, as co-owners of the instant land.

B. Division method 1) Division of the jointly-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the jointly-owned property is divided through a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, 10190, Jul. 22, 2004). In addition to the evidence mentioned above and the evidence No. 4, considering the current status and form of the land in this case, the developments leading up to the acquisition of the share of the land by the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the defendant G’s successor, and the opinion on the method of partition on both sides, it is reasonable to divide the above land in kind as prescribed in paragraph (1)

3. The judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded otherwise, is unfair, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.