1. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties J, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and I are as shown in attached Form 1 from Defendant H, respectively.

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), Appointer J and Defendants shared K-436 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in proportion to shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2, Gunsan-si. The fact that the consultation on the method of partition of the instant land among the said co-owners was not constituted between the parties, or that the consultation on the method of partition of the instant land was not constituted between the said co-owners, can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3-1 through No. 7,

Therefore, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party J, who are co-owners of the instant land, may file a claim against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land, which is jointly owned pursuant to Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.

In the case of dividing goods jointly owned by several persons, in principle, the size of land acquired by each co-owner shall be equal to the ratio of the co-owner's co-owned share. However, it is not necessarily required to be divided by such method, but if the shape or location of the jointly-owned property subject to division, and the situation of its use or the economic value are not equal, it is also allowed to divide the economic value so as to correspond to the share ratio in consideration of all such circumstances. If certain requirements are met, it is allowed to divide the jointly-owned property by requiring the adjustment of the economic value in cash between the co-owners. Furthermore, it is recognized that it is reasonable to acquire the jointly-owned property to a specific person by comprehensively taking into account the causes of the co-owned relation, the ratio of co-owned share, the economic value of the co-owner's share, and the wishes of the co-owners for division if there are special circumstances in which the acquisition of the price of the share to another co-owner is deemed not detrimental to