1. A ship that connects each point of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 in sequence, among the area of 2,249 square meters in Sinjin-si, E, in order.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners (shares: plaintiff 3/12, defendant B2/12, defendant C2/12, defendant D5/12, and defendant D5/12), and the facts that no agreement on the division of the land of this case has been reached between the plaintiff and the defendants on the division of the land of this case, and there is no special agreement on the prohibition of subdivision as to the land of this case.

According to the above facts of recognition, there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as co-owners of the land of this case on the method of division. Thus, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendants for partition of the land of this case pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, the method of partition may be selected at will if the co-owners agree on the method of partition. However, in the case of dividing the jointly-owned property by a trial due to a lack of agreement, in principle, dividing it in kind. When it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind, it is possible to order the auction of the goods only when the value of the property might be significantly reduced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da233428, Mar. 26, 2015). The location, size, form, and use of the instant real estate recognized by the evidence above and the intent of dividing the Plaintiff and the Defendants (Defendant D and Defendant B seek to divide the land desired by the Plaintiff in kind). Considering the shape and purpose of use of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants through division, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case as indicated in the Disposition.