1. Attached reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19, 2,00 square meters prior to the racing-si.

1. According to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted in the record of the creation of co-owned property partition claim, the Plaintiff owned 2,182m2 (hereinafter “instant real property”) in the proportion of 600/660 shares, G in the proportion of 60/660 shares, and G owned in the proportion of 60/660 shares. G died on March 1, 1982 and the remaining Defendants, Defendant B and their children, who were their successors, inherited rights and duties on the instant real property, and there is no agreement among the Plaintiff and the Defendants on partition of the instant real property. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, may file a claim against the Defendants for partition pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

2. According to the records, the plaintiff does not consent to the division of the real estate of this case on the ground that graves are installed on the land of this case, and the defendants do not raise any special objection as to the method of division as stated in the disposition clause 1 of this case (the plaintiff agrees that the part owned by the defendants is 200 square meters so that the land of this case can be divided into the real estate of this case). The part owned by the defendants can be accessible to the road and its access can be easy, and other causes and ratios of co-ownership relations, economic value of the division, wishes of co-owners on the method of division, present situation of use, etc. should be taken into account, such as the land of this case.

3. The conclusion is that the division of the land of this case, which is jointly owned, is determined as above. It is ordered as above.