1. The Defendant shall, with respect to the Plaintiff A’s share of 1400/7169 out of the 67m2 in Jeju-si, E, and with respect to the Plaintiff B’s share of 1280/7169.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 30, 1984, the F-121 square meters prior to Jeju-si was divided into one hundred and twenty-seven square meters prior to F (hereinafter “F-land”) and one-four square meters prior to G14 square meters.

B. On December 3, 1991, the Defendant received the registration of ownership transfer from H on the ground of a partial sale on November 26, 1991 with respect to the F’s share of 40/107 of F’s land.

C. I received the ownership transfer registration from H on April 29, 1995 with respect to the portion of 32/107 out of the F land on May 3, 1995. D.

Plaintiff

A has completed the registration of ownership transfer from H on September 25, 2003 with respect to the portion of 35/107 out of the F land on October 6, 2003.

E. F land was divided into 40 square meters prior to F on July 20, 2005 (hereinafter “F land after division”) and 67 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “E land”).

F. After the partition, I and the shares of Plaintiff A were transferred to the Defendant on September 6, 2005 on the ground of the co-owned property partition agreement (hereinafter “instant co-owned property partition agreement”) on August 31, 2005.

E. However,

The Defendant’s share in the land divided from F’s land pursuant to paragraph (1) was not transferred to I and the Plaintiff, and the shares of Defendant 40/107, I 32/107, and Plaintiff A 35/107 were maintained.

G. On February 6, 2007, Plaintiff B received the registration of ownership transfer from I on the ground of sale on February 5, 2007, with regard to 32/107 shares among E land, and acquired the status of contractor pursuant to the instant co-owned property partition agreement.

H. On the other hand, F land was merged with JJ 466 square meters in Jeju-si adjacent to the Defendant on September 28, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff A, the defendant, and I agreed to the purport of Paragraph 1 of the disposition at the time of the co-owned property partition agreement in this case, and I transferred the status of party to the plaintiff B pursuant to the above agreement, and thus the defendant is the same as Paragraph 1 of the disposition against the plaintiff.