1. The attached appraisal marks 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 26, respectively, shall be the same as the attached appraisal marks 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 26.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the results of this court’s on-site inspection, and the purport of the whole arguments as to appraiser F’s appraisal results, the following facts can be acknowledged: ① 25,00/921,60 shares, 135,000 shares, 450/921,60 shares, 1300/921,921,60 shares, 135,000 shares, 50/921,60 shares, 50/921,60 shares, 50/921,60 shares, 124/1,024 shares, 24/124/1,000 shares, and 34/1,024 shares of the real estate of this case among the plaintiffs and the defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs can claim a partition of co-owned property against the defendant, who is co-owner of the real estate of this case.

Furthermore, considering the following as a whole: (a) the status of the instant real estate as to the method of partition; (b) the existence of the Defendant’s grave, in particular, and the Defendant’s position on the partition of co-owned property at the second date for pleading; (c) the share of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant; and (d) the area of the Defendant’s grave part, etc., the attached appraisal, including the part on which the Defendant’s grave exists, including the part on which the Defendant’s grave exists, is owned by the Defendant with the 398 square meters in sequence; and (b) the remaining portion of the appraisal, including the part on which the Defendant’s grave exists, are collectively owned by the 10D181/181/185/185/188 of the selected parties, as the Plaintiffs seek, are owned by the 29,1 through 26,32,31,30,29 square meters in sequence.

I would like to say.

For the same reasons, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable.