1. All appeals filed by Defendant B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and AB are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are as follows: Defendant B, C, D, E, G, H.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of

[Judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in light of the evidence Nos. 5-7 (including paper numbers) and No. 1-5 submitted by the court of first instance to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, as well as the evidence No. 5 (including paper numbers). 2.

A. Defendant B, etc. (Appellants, the co-owner of the Jeju YY land), and Defendant B, etc., the co-owner of the Jeju Y land, completed the agreement to divide the land in kind, thus, the lawsuit on the land at Jeju Y is unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting the rights.

B. Determination 1) An action for partition of jointly-owned property may be brought only when an agreement on the method of partition has not been reached (Article 269(1) of the Civil Act). An agreement on the method of partition among co-owners is actually underway, but no agreement has been reached. Also, the object of the agreement is the method of partition. As such, even if all co-owners agreed on the division of the jointly-owned property, but they did not reach an agreement on the specific method of partition, the co-owners may bring a lawsuit for partition of jointly-owned property even if they did not reach an agreement on the specific method of partition. 2) No. 1-5 evidence No. 2, which alone states that the agreement on the division of the jointly-owned property between the Plaintiff and Defendant B

Defendant B, etc.’s assertion is without merit.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals filed by Defendant B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and AB are dismissed due to the lack of justifiable grounds.