1. Of the land size B 24,198 square meters of land size as shown in the annexed Form 2, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 19 in sequence.

The land listed in paragraph (1) of the disposition of the right to partition of co-owned property (hereinafter “instant land”) is the Plaintiff’s share 169/24198; the Defendants shared the remaining shares; and the fact that the agreement on the method of partition of the instant land has not been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants by the closing date of pleadings does not conflict between the parties; or it may be acknowledged by the purport of the written evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, may request the Defendants, other co-owners, to divide the land of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

The method of partition of co-owned property may be selected at will if the parties reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided by the judgment because no agreement is reached, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is divided in kind in kind, the court may order the auction of the property only when the value might be reduced remarkably.

(1) According to the records and arguments of this case on November 12, 1991, according to the overall purport of the records and arguments of this case, the plaintiff owns the land (A) part as stated in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter referred to as "A land") and wishes to divide the land (b) part as listed in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter referred to as "B land") into the co-ownership of the defendants. Among the defendants, there is no objection to the above division, except the defendant C, D, and E, even if divided as alleged by the plaintiff, it seems that there is no particular problem in accessibility to the land (B) land as a contribution, and all other circumstances, such as the location, shape, and total area of the land of this case, it is reasonable to divide the land (a) into the land as owned by the plaintiff, and (b) the land in kind owned by the defendants.