1. The payment of each of the money stated in the payment column for each plaintiff in the separate sheet No. 1 annexed to the plaintiffs is paid and redeemed;

A. Defendant.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 (including a branch number) of the co-owned property partition claim, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiffs and the Defendants own each share in the separate sheet No. 2 in the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case", and individually, in the same manner as "land" according to the sequence No. 2). Since the consultation on the method of partition between the plaintiffs, co-owners of each land of this case and the defendants did not lead to an agreement on the method of partition of each land of this case, the plaintiffs can file a claim against the defendants for partition of each

2. Method of partition of co-owned property;

A. It is recognized that it is reasonable to acquire the pertinent jointly owned property to a specific person, comprehensively taking into account the cause of sharing the relevant legal doctrine-related co-ownership, the ratio of co-ownership in co-ownership, the economic value when divided, and the wishes of co-owners for the method of division. If there are special circumstances to recognize that acquiring the price of the co-ownership to another co-owner does not undermine the substantial fairness among co-owners, the co-owners are allowed to acquire the jointly owned property separately or jointly owned by one of the co-owners, but the co-owners who own the goods in kind are allowed to make a division by means of making the other co-owners compensate for the appropriate and reasonable price of the share to the other co-owners (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da30583, Oct. 14,

Even if the shares of the Defendants selected by the method of partition are combined, their shares are 0.74% for the land Nos. 1, 2 and 5.56% for the land Nos. 63±8,505), and 3 through 8, as seen earlier, the fact that the shares are merely 5.56% for the land Nos. 63±134 (i.e., 63±1,134) is identical. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendants agreed to sell the land Nos. 1 through 6 to a third party, but did not sell the land by failing to prepare and give notice of the delegation for real estate sale to