1. The attached appraisal sheet No. 1, 2, 12, 13, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 1 shall take precedence over each point of the JJ 367 square meters, and the attached appraisal sheet No. 367 square meters.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the facts that the plaintiffs and the defendants, the inheritee of the plaintiffs and the defendants, shared the land of this case at the ratio of the plaintiff A241/367 shares, the plaintiff B84/367 shares, the network K42/367 shares, and the shares of the plaintiff A24/367 shares, and the plaintiff C (the heir of the deceased) who is the spouse of the deceased K, the remaining defendants (the plaintiff 2/15 shares in inheritance), and the plaintiff and the defendants, who are the defendants (the plaintiff 2/15 shares in inheritance) did not reach an agreement on the partition of co-owned property of this case.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs, co-owners of the land of this case, can claim a partition of co-owned property against the defendants pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, the method of division is examined.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the commission of appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation to the Seogu District Corporation, the following facts are revealed: (b) the portion of the attached appraisal among the land in this case is owned by the Defendants as the land located within the fence installed by the Defendants; and (c) the portion of the attached appraisal in the ship (c) part 112 square meters connected each point of the 4,5,6,7, and 4 of the aforementioned appraisal is used as the site for the building owned by the Plaintiff B; and (d) the Plaintiffs seek the partition of the land in this case according to the current status of possession; and (e) the shares of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are identical with the area of each possession thereof, and therefore, it is reasonable to divide the land in kind based on the current status of possession as claimed by the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by dividing the land of this case in kind as shown in paragraph (1) of this Article.

The Defendants asserted that the net K’s share in the instant land is inherited solely by Defendant I after the closing of the argument in the instant case, and that they completed the agreement on the division of inherited property.