1. The part concerning the claim for partition of co-owned property among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay 390,181 won to the plaintiffs, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant own 2/11 shares in each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) with the deceased F’s inheritors, and the Defendant owns 3/11 shares in each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From around 2016, the Defendant had G cultivate the instant land without obtaining consent from the Plaintiffs.

C. From November 1, 2017 to the date of the closing of the instant argument, the rent of the instant two land is KRW 153,300 per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1-2 and 3; witness G testimony; appraiser H’s fee appraisal result; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the plaintiffs' claim for partition of co-owned property is legitimate ex officio.

A. In principle, the partition of co-owned property shall be divided in consultation, but if an agreement on the division has not been reached, a judicial partition may be requested between the co-owners. Thus, where the agreement on the division has already been reached among the co-owners, it is not permitted to seek confirmation of ownership whether a part of the co-owners does not cooperate with the registration of transfer, or even if a dispute over the division exists, to claim the registration of ownership transfer as to the divided portion, or to maintain the lawsuit of partition of co-owned property which has already been instituted by a separate or another lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da30348, 94Da30355, Jan.

With respect to this case, the health department, the plaintiffs sought to divide each of the lands of this case as stated in the purport of the claim, and the fact that the defendant consented thereto is clear in the record.

Thus, the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the division of each land of this case has been reached. Thus, the part on the claim for partition of co-owned property in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. Claim for damages.