1. Of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the real estate listed in paragraph 4 shall be owned by the plaintiff and described in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, and 4 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") due to inheritance, etc., and share in the same proportion as the shares of co-owners listed in the separate sheet. The facts that the plaintiff and the defendants did not reach a co-owned property partition agreement on each of the real estate of this case can be acknowledged.

2. Determination:

A. Division of co-owned property by the relevant legal principles can be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owned property is divided by the judgment because it does not reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. It is possible to order the auction of the goods only when the value of the property is likely to be significantly reduced if it is unable to divide it in kind or if it is divided in kind in kind. Thus, barring the above circumstances, the court shall decide to recognize the sole ownership of each co-owner for the divided property by dividing the jointly-owned property into several items in kind at the share ratio of each co-owner. The method of division is not the way requested by the parties but the reasonable division according to the share ratio of the co-owner at the discretion of the court. In principle, the size of the land acquired by each co-owner should be equal to that of the co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owned share. However, it is not necessarily required to be divided in such a way, and the form or condition of the land or its economic value is not equal.