The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the record of the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant H, and Defendant I in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that each of the above lands should be divided by ordering an auction of each of the instant lands for the reasons stated in its reasoning and distributing the price.

In doing so, there was no error by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on partition of

2. Examining the records on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Plaintiff purchased the said shares in the compulsory auction procedure commenced on September 19, 201, with respect to the 1/14 shares in the name of part of Defendant C’s Intervenor D (hereinafter “acquisition Intervenor”), among each of the instant lands, and that the Plaintiff should distribute the amount equivalent to 1/14 shares to the Plaintiff when distributing the proceeds after the auction as a divided method of each of the instant lands.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal principles regarding partition of co-owned property.

3. Examining the grounds of appeal by the acquiring intervenor in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the allegation by the acquiring intervenor as to the sectionally owned co-ownership relationship and the property used, based on its stated reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

(2) A renunciation of inheritance is retroactively effective at the time of commencement of inheritance (see Article 1042 of the Civil Act). A person who renounces inheritance is deemed to have never been an inheritor (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29307, Jun. 9, 201). In addition, where one inheritor renounces inheritance in cases where there are several successors, the said person’s renunciation of inheritance shall be deemed to have been an inheritor.