1. All appeals filed against the plaintiffs of defendant E, F, G, H, I, J, L, and M are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be Defendant E, F, G, H.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The investment agreement of this case concluded by the plaintiff and the defendant alleged by the defendants at the trial constitutes a partnership agreement. Since the land of this case, which is union property, is not joint property of the plaintiff and the defendant, but joint property, there is no right to claim a partition of co-owned property as to the above land.

B. In a case where several legal persons jointly purchase real estate, the legal relationship between the buyers is merely a co-ownership relationship, and they may be purchased at the same company with their number of members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da30622, Jun. 14, 2002; 2009Da75635, 75642, Dec. 24, 2009; 2009Da75635, 75642, etc.). In a case where it is not acknowledged that the co-owners of real estate cooperate with one another for the purpose of achieving the common purpose, and that there was a "purpose for the joint business" beyond this, their legal relations are merely a co-ownership relationship, and they cannot be viewed as a partnership relationship under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da6078, Apr. 9, 2004; 2009Da756429, Feb. 10). 10).