1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning the area of 40 square meters in Seocho-si D in Seocho-si shall be modified as follows:

It is 40m2.40m2.

1. In full view of the entries and the purport of the whole pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including the branch numbers if there are serial numbers), the fact that the plaintiff Gap owned the shares of 367/400, the defendant owned the shares of 33/400, the defendant's share of 21/37, the plaintiff Eul's share of 122m2m2 (hereinafter "the land of this case"), and the total land of this case is owned by the plaintiff Eul as the shares of 21/37, the plaintiff Eul's share of 15/37, the defendant's share of 1/37, the defendant's share of 1/37, and the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the division method of each of the above land by the date of the closing of arguments in the trial.

According to the above facts of recognition, there is no agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the method of partition of each land of this case, which is jointly owned by them. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiffs A, as co-owners of land No. 1, may file a claim against the defendant, who is the remaining co-owners of land No. 2, for partition of each land of this case pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1)

(B) The court below held that the co-ownership relation between the co-ownership of land No. 1 is established, and the plaintiffs' claim for co-ownership is not permitted. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above allegation, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit. 2. In principle, the co-ownership of a co-owned property by trial on the method of partition of co-owned property can be divided in kind as long as the co-owner can make a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner's share. However, the requirement of " cannot be divided in kind" is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the co-owned property in kind in light of the nature, location, area

If it is divided in kind, it is remarkably possible to divide.