1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the first instance court’s reasoning is identical to that for the following reasons.

Next, even if the apartment house in this case falls under an aggregate building, even if the apartment house in this case is in progress and the apartment house in this case is removed accordingly, the prohibition of the co-owner's claim for partition of the site under Article 8 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Act") cannot be applied to this case. However, in light of the provisions of Articles 47 through 49 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the prohibition of the co-owner's claim for partition of the site under Article 8 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings shall be applied to the case where the apartment house in this case is reconstructed. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim on the different premise cannot be accepted without examining other points.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that they can claim the division of the instant site pursuant to Article 41 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), but Article 41 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that where a housing reconstruction project is implemented in a housing complex where not less than 2 buildings exist, a land division may be claimed against a part of the land within the relevant housing complex regardless of the provisions of Article 57 of the Building Act, if necessary to meet the requirements for consent to the establishment of the association. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot claim the division of the instant site pursuant to Article 41 of the Urban Improvement Act. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion on the different premise can also be examined.