1. With respect to the area of 1,065 square meters prior to J, the ship equipped with the attached appraisal map 1,2, 3, 1,000 square meters, with each other in sequence connected 1,065 square meters.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers), the plaintiffs and the defendant may claim a partition of co-owned property against the defendant, the co-owner of the land of this case, as the co-owner of the land of this case, for the co-owner of the land of this case, the agreement on the partition method of the land of this case was not reached between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the partition method of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs and the defendant may claim a partition of co-owned property by trial against the defendant, the co-owner of the land of this case.

The court shall, in principle, divide the article jointly owned in kind in the case of dividing the article jointly owned by the co-owners according to the judgment due to the failure to reach an agreement, but in the case of dividing the article jointly owned by the court. The court may order the auction of the article only when it is impossible to divide the article in kind or if it is possible to divide the article in kind in kind with the order, and the price can be divided. The plaintiffs presented a protocol of subdivision as stated in Paragraph 1 of the order. The defendant is not present at the verification date and the date of pleading even if the complaint of this case was served, and the form and size of the land of this case and the shape and value of the land owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant through the division are considered comprehensively, and therefore, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case in kind as stated in Paragraph 1