1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are the same purport as the allegations in the court of first instance (However, the plaintiff C's share in the building of this case was added to the preliminary assertion that 7/20), and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance was presented.

The Plaintiffs: (a) originally acquired the instant building by Plaintiff C;

Although the plaintiff C and the defendant alleged that they donated or succeeded to each share of the building of this case, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

The site of the building of this case is the ownership of Franchi, an independent party to the original judgment (hereinafter referred to as the "this case's clan"); the building of this case also prepared a pledge to promise the plaintiff C and the defendant to register the ownership transfer to the clan of this case on December 16, 2003; the above pledge contains a statement that QK would withdraw the lawsuit of claiming the registration of ownership transfer against the plaintiff Eul (this case's lawsuit was withdrawn on December 18, 2003) along with the content that QK confirmed and accepted it by the chairperson of the clan of this case's J, and furthermore, the above pledge is registered as the ownership of the plaintiff Eul (the defendant) and C (the plaintiff). Further, the above pledge is registered as the ownership of two persons, and it promises to move the building to the clan of this case's clan of this case; the building expenses are compensated for, and all other matters arising from the compensation and transfer should be resolved by the chairperson of the clan of this case's building.

The fact that each of the 1/2 shares is sold to the clan of this case is not indicated (i.e., the foregoing content is interpreted as not being refunded a purchase price equivalent to 1/2 of the Plaintiff C shares, but merely for the Plaintiff C to receive a certain amount of money as a construction cost). The Plaintiff C returned a refund of KRW 50 million on December 10, 2010, as written in the above pledge.