공유물분할
1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Factual basis
A. The land of this case is owned by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in common by the following shares, and the land of this case is jointly owned by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 7830, Dec. 31, 2000; Act No. 8504, Feb. 23, 2006>
- 1,170/130 of plaintiffs A13,330 - 640/30 of plaintiffs B 13,330 - 615/130 of plaintiffs C, D, E, F, G, and H 13,330 of the defendants, respectively 870/13,330
B. In the development of V around 1988, female-si (hereinafter “Yju-gun”) sold 13,330 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) to multiple people, among which they were located in the commercial facility district, through a free contract, to newly build a restaurant 9, entertainment place, one commemorative store, one shop, two shops for special sales place, and four shops for exhibition facilities.
In this city, the buyer (including some of the plaintiffs and the defendants) owned the land before subdivision as co-ownership, and the location of each building to be newly constructed and used was specified by drawing lots.
The above buyers specified the location for new construction of a building among the land before division, such as the zone A-4 of Plaintiff F, the zone A-6 of Plaintiff H, the zone A-3-2 of Plaintiff H, the zone B-1 of Defendant L, and the zone B-3 of Defendant K, and the area was specified according to each allocation.
C. On February 17, 1988, a sales contract for the land to be newly constructed between each purchaser and each purchaser is entered into first and the same year.
9. On December 27 and 23, the sales contract for the land to be newly constructed as a restaurant was concluded.
After the above buyers newly constructed a building at each corresponding location, some of the buyers sold the shares of each building and the land, and the ownership was transferred.
On the other hand, the part of the land where the restaurant building is located among the lands before the partition was partitioned into U land on February 10, 1993.
As a result, the plaintiffs now are commercial buildings on T-land.