2. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be put at auction.

Inasmuch as a co-owner’s claim for partition becomes the Plaintiff and the other co-owners shall become the co-defendant, in case where the whole share of some co-owners is transferred to a third party during the proceeding of a lawsuit as to the partition of co-owned property, and the previous party who transferred the co-owned share remains without withdrawal, the part concerning the previous party who did not withdraw is unlawful.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). Of each real estate indicated in the attached real estate indication (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), the ownership of Defendant D’s co-ownership shares was transferred to Defendant D’s acquiring participant E (hereinafter “acquisition participant”) through sale by compulsory auction on September 13, 2016 during the instant lawsuit pending on September 13, 2016. The Plaintiff submitted an application for intervention on October 24, 2016 and issued a decision of acceptance; the fact that Defendant D failed to express his/her intention of withdrawal in the instant lawsuit is apparent in the record.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the ownership of each of the instant real estate as indicated in the separate ownership shares ratio. Of each of the instant real estate, the ownership of Defendant D’s co-ownership was transferred to the acquiring intervenor by a compulsory auction on September 13, 2016. The facts that the agreement on the method of dividing the instant real estate between the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the acquiring intervenor was not reached by the closing date of pleadings can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1 through No. 30, and the above facts of recognition.