1. The real estate indicated in [Attachment 1] is put to an auction and the auction cost is deducted from the proceeds of the sale.

1. In full view of the purport of the pleadings as to the claim for partition of co-owned property as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the fact-finding as to the actual market of this court, the plaintiffs and the defendants shared the real property of this case with each co-owner and share indication indicated in the annexed Table No. 2. After acquiring co-owned share as to the real property of this case, the plaintiffs agreed with the defendants, but did not reach agreement, and the real property of this case is not allowed in kind more than the present size pursuant to the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Farmland Act.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the real estate of this case should be put to an auction and be distributed in accordance with the ratio of co-ownership between the plaintiffs and the defendants, except the auction cost.

2. The Plaintiffs asserts that, inasmuch as the Defendants are taking exclusive possession of and benefit from the entire real estate in excess of their own shares, the amount equivalent to the Plaintiffs’ share should be refunded as unjust enrichment.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants acquired exclusive share in the instant real estate after acquiring the shares of the Plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above claims are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim for partition of co-owned property as to the real estate of this case is justified, and the plaintiffs' claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent is dismissed in entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.