1. A among each land listed in the list of “land subject to subdivision” in attached Table 1.

The land described in paragraphs (1) and (11) shall be the Plaintiff A.

As of the date of closing argument in the instant case, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants shared the “land subject to partition” (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) as indicated in the separate sheet of co-ownership prior to partition as indicated in attached Table 2, and the fact that consultation on the method of partition of each of the instant lands between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not lead to any dispute between the parties, or that consultation on the method of partition of each of the instant lands was not reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries in the evidence No. 3 and No. 4

Therefore, the Plaintiffs may claim a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants based on their co-ownership share pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

The method of partition of co-owned property may be selected at will if the co-owners reach an agreement, but if the co-owners divide the co-owned property through a trial because they failed to reach an agreement, the court shall divide it in kind in principle. If it is impossible to divide it in kind or if it is possible to divide it in kind in kind, the court may order the auction of the goods and pay it in kind only when the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably.

Unless there are such circumstances as above, the court shall render a judgment recognizing the sole ownership of each co-owner for divided goods by dividing the jointly owned property into several goods in kind according to the share ratio of each co-owner, and the method of division shall be determined by the reasonable division according to the share ratio of the co-owner according to the co-owner's share ratio according to the co-ownership relation and all the circumstances of the goods which are the objects of the division,

In addition, in the case of the division of goods jointly owned by many people, the remaining co-owners who do not want the division are also allowed to remain in common (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da27819, Dec. 7, 1993). The evidence mentioned above is examined.