1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the plaintiffs' appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following "2. height", and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

(In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant).2.

A. The first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment

B. From 12th to 16th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following facts are met.

C. The plaintiffs' "O" died on July 1, 1939 at the same place as the person whose legal domicile is located in the "GameU". After that death on September 5, 1962 by the deceased on the part of the deceased's head of the family and the heir of the property, the plaintiff I (J), who is the deceased's head of the family, jointly succeeded to the MaAV's property as the deceased's head of the family as the deceased's heir. On August 30, 1972, the plaintiff I died on August 30, 1972 and jointly succeeded to the MaAV's property as the deceased's head of the Eul, son, and the plaintiff E, F, and G, who is his heir of the family, as the head of the family.

Since then, on May 7, 2017, B died on May 7, 2017, during which the lawsuit of this case was pending, and succeeded jointly to the property of Plaintiff A, C, D, E, F, and G, which are the children of the network B, and the above plaintiffs took over the proceedings of the network B.

In addition, H died on August 30, 2018 and jointly succeeded to the property of Plaintiff BR, Plaintiff BTS, and BU, one of its wife, and Plaintiff BS, BT, and BU, and the above Plaintiffs took over the proceedings of the deceased H.

As a result, the portion of the plaintiffs' share of inheritance was equal to the respective ratio specified in attached Table 4.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance is just and the appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant is dismissed as all of the grounds for appeal.

However, since the plaintiff BR, BS, BT and BU have taken over the lawsuit of the deceased H, paragraph 2 of the judgment of the first instance shall be ordered.