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 court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant Republic of Korea and G are as follows: “I land before subdivision” and “I land after subdivision,” and “I land after subdivision.”

A) There was no agreement to specify the location and area of the land and to divide the ownership of the land into sectional ownership. Although the sectional co-ownership relationship regarding the land of this case was established between Defendant Jung-gu and G, since the land of this case was divided into the land of this case, the mutual title trust based on sectional ownership relationship was terminated, since the land of this case has been maintained up to now even though the land of this case was divided into the land of this case. (ii) Defendant Jung-gu and Seoul Special Metropolitan City was a co-owner of the land of this case without the consent of the deceased, and thus, Defendant Republic is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages.

3) Since Defendant Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City illegally occupied the instant land by owning the instant building, it is obligated to remove the instant land within the scope of the Plaintiffs’ co-ownership and deliver the relevant part of the relevant land. (B) Determination 1) If there is an agreement to specify the location and area of a parcel of land and to divide ownership, the agreement can be duly established. If a specific sale and purchase of part of a parcel of land and a registration thereof has completed the registration of transfer of co-ownership, it can be deemed that there exists a mutual title trust agreement for each part of the common sectional ownership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da218321, Aug. 18, 2017). In addition, in a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, each sectionally owned co-owner has his/her right.