The land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, each of which falls under the share of 165/1639, the share of Defendant B B 1/2, and the remaining Defendants’ share of which falls under the “share before division” in the attached list.

As to the instant land, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was not reached.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings are established. According to the above facts, the plaintiff can claim a partition of co-owned property against the defendants who are co-owners of the land of this case as co-owners.

We examine the method of partition of co-owned property.

The court shall, in principle, divide the article jointly owned in kind in cases of dividing the article jointly owned by the court through a trial because there is no agreement between the co-owners. The auction of the article can be ordered only when it is impossible to divide the article in kind or it is possible to divide the article in kind in kind if the value might be significantly reduced. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall render a judgment to divide the article jointly owned into several articles in kind according to the ratio of shares of co-owners and to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided article.

In addition, the method of division is not a way requested by the parties, but a reasonable division is made according to the ratio of shares of co-owners according to the overall circumstances of the goods which are co-ownership relations or objects at the discretion of the court. If the goods jointly owned by many people are divided in kind within the limit of shares of the co-owners, the remaining co-owners who do not want the division are allowed to remain in co-ownership.

However, since the claimant for partition claims in kind for sharing the other party, the other party does not want to maintain the sharing relationship only between them.