All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

The land prior to the division of this case, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, was registered as co-ownership with a mutual title trust as co-ownership relationship, and F is one of co-owners who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares 60/514.

F entered into a contract on July 16, 2006 that sells 152.69 square meters of land and 52.21 square meters of land on a single-story house (hereinafter “instant contract”) to the Plaintiffs, while the F exclusively occupied and used a specific part of the said part of the said registered share in the lower judgment, which is larger than the area according to the said registered share ratio. On September 29, 2006, the F transferred the ownership of the said 60/514 shares and the single-story house on the ground of sale to the Plaintiffs.

(B) As to approximately 14 square meters not sold among specific parts of 204.8 square meters, F agreed to have the right to purchase at KRW 18 million per square year if he/she won in a lawsuit with other sectional owners.

Meanwhile, before the instant sales contract was concluded, F was rendered a favorable judgment on October 28, 2005, on the ground that title trust was terminated for the land of this case, which is equivalent to the share ratio registered in its own name against other co-owners, etc. with respect to the specific portion of the land prior to the instant division 204.8 square meters, and on the other hand, the remaining part was rendered a favorable judgment on October 28, 2005.

On September 19, 2006, an appeal by some co-owners, etc. was dismissed, and on January 25, 2007, the above judgment became final and conclusive as the appeal was dismissed.

C. The land before the instant partition was divided into 19 lots in accordance with the purport of the above final judgment, and the land before the instant partition became the land after the instant partition to which the parcel number was assigned as E in the holding of the lower judgment.