1. The amount remaining after the purchase price is deducted from the auction cost by selling a ditch 2,167 square meters of Gangwon-gun AA ditch 2,167 square meters to an auction.

1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence 1 and 3 and the whole purport of the pleadings:

The plaintiff and the defendant are the 2,167 square meters of Gangwon-gun AA ditch (hereinafter referred to as the "the ditch of this case")

1. or 23., the heir of the network AB, the defendant 24., the defendant 25., and the defendant 26. co-ownership shares in each share stated in the separate sheet.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not hold a consultation on the method of division regarding the ditch of this case, which is public property until the date of closing the argument of this case.

2. Defendant 1’s judgment on the main safety defense of Defendant 1, who had already been sentenced to the partition of co-owned property on February 23, 2012 in the Chuncheon District Court case No. 201Gadan858 as to the ditches of this case, asserts that the lawsuit of this case, which is the same content as the above judgment, should be dismissed as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

A lawsuit claiming a partition of co-litigation is an essential co-litigation in which a co-owner who claims a partition becomes the plaintiff and all other co-owners are co-defendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da31124, Jul. 10, 2001). As such, a judgment on all co-owners ought to be unitedly finalized, and if there is any defect in the requirements for litigation in one of co-litigants, the former lawsuit is unlawful

In the civil procedure, the existence of the parties to the lawsuit or the ability of the parties to the lawsuit constitutes the litigation requirement, and the defect cannot be corrected by the correction of the indication of the parties, even if it comes to

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da105310, Jun. 14, 2012). In addition, in a case where a principal judgment is rendered on an essential co-litigation with respect to such an essential co-litigation, only a part of the co-litigants, where a final judgment is to be rendered, and only a part of the co-litigants, or an additional judgment on the remaining co-litigants, is not permissible. Therefore, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da1323, Jun. 24, 2011.