1. All appeals filed by Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and L Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Appellant”) emphasizes in the trial or adds the following judgments as to the newly asserted contents, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the assertion that the Defendants, who appealed, added or emphasized in the trial

A. The above defendants asserted that the defendants purchased each share of the plaintiff among the real estate of this case and acquired it in kind among the real estate of this case, and it is reasonable to divide the real estate of this case into the method of spot payment by means of the so-called full-time compensation that the defendants compensate the plaintiff for the appropriate price of the share.

The so-called "division by full-value compensation" is not a principle method stipulated in the Civil Act, but can lead to recognizing the private expropriation of one co-owner or unfairly deprived of the other co-owner's right to claim the purchase of shares. Thus, it is reasonable to acquire the jointly owned property concerned to a specific person in consideration of the causes of the co-ownership relationship, the ratio of co-ownership share in the case of division, the economic value in the case of division, and the wishes of co-owners in the method of division, etc. In special circumstances where acquiring the price of the share to other co-owners is deemed not to undermine the substantial fairness of the co-owners, the jointly owned property shall be owned by one of the co-owners or by several co-owners, but the division by the method of compensating the other co-owners for the appropriate and reasonable price of share to other co-owners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da30583, Oct. 14, 2004).