1. Of the land size of 1286 square meters prior to I in Sung-si, each point indicated in the separate sheet No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 4 shall be in order.

1. Evidence No. 1, A2, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser J, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff shares 2/3 shares, and the Defendants shares 29/87 shares, among the land of this case, 1286 square meters prior to the I in Sung-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. There is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants not to divide the instant land.

C. The instant land is adjoining to the road by the line that connects each point of the following points, i.e., indication of the attached drawing, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, and 11, in the form of an infinite type.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may request the Defendants to divide the land of this case.

B. As to the partition of co-owned property

In a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property, the court shall order the division according to the share ratio in a reasonable way by comprehensively taking into account the co-ownership relation or all the circumstances of the property which is the object thereof, and in principle, the share ratio refers to the share ratio of the value according to the share ratio. If the shape, location, use status, or economic value of the object to be partitioned is not equal, the court shall order the division by adjusting

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da39105 delivered on November 10, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 93Da13445 delivered on August 27, 1993, etc.). In addition, in the case of the division of goods jointly owned by many people, the remaining co-owners who jointly wish to divide the goods in kind within the share limit of the person who requested the division and who do not want the division may also be permitted to do so by sharing the remaining co-owners.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da18219 delivered on September 9, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 91Da27228 delivered on November 12, 1991, etc.). In addition, in addition, the Plaintiff was entitled to divide the part (a) of the above ship into the Plaintiff, and the part (b) of the said ship into the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the part (b) of 429С as owned by the Defendants, and the Defendants raised an objection thereto.