1. The annexed map No. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 70 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case") can be acknowledged that the plaintiff owns 900/914 shares and 14/914 shares in the defendant's land. The plaintiff and the defendant do not have a dispute over the following: 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 144 shares in the attached Form among the land in this case; the plaintiff and the defendant do not own the land in this case's portion of 1, 2, 3, 47, 167, 14, 17

The method of partition of the article jointly owned may be selected at will when the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the article jointly owned is divided by a trial due to the failure to reach an agreement, the court shall in principle divide the article in kind, and if it is impossible to divide it in kind or it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the auction of the article may be ordered only when the value of the article is likely to be significantly reduced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10183, 10190, Jul. 22, 2004). According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to divide the part of the article (a) of this case from among the land of this case into the land of this case as owned by the plaintiff, and the part (b) of this case into

Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant shall divide the land of this case into the above methods, and they shall be decided as per Disposition.