1. Of the lands listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, the land listed in paragraph 1 is owned by the Plaintiff, and the land listed in paragraph 2 is owned by the Defendants.

1. Case summary and judgment

A. While the Plaintiff and the Defendants shared each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) as shown in the separate sheet No. 2, the fact that no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the method of partition of the instant land does not exist between the parties, and thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for the partition of the instant land.

B. A method of partition 1) In a case of dividing an article jointly owned by a trial, if it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is anticipated that its value will be significantly reduced, an auction of the article may be ordered. Here, the requirement is not physically strict interpretation. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind in light of the nature, location, area, situation of use, and use value after the division, etc. of the article. It includes cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the article in kind. "The value of the article to be owned by the owner in kind might be significantly reduced if the article is divided in kind." However, it includes cases where the co-owner's value of the article to be owned by the owner in kind might be significantly reduced than the share value of the article before the division in kind, but it is not necessarily a subjectively consistent with the requirements of the co-owner in relation to the division in kind, such as the following: