공유물분할
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the lawsuit against Defendant H is dismissed.
2. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province: 40,649§³ of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.
1. Whether the part against Defendant H among the instant lawsuit is lawful
A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the part of the instant lawsuit against Defendant H among the instant lawsuit.
Inasmuch as a co-owner’s claim for partition is an inherent indispensable co-litigation in which the co-owner who filed a partition becomes the Plaintiff and all other co-owners are to become a co-defendant, where the whole share of some co-owners is transferred to a third party during the progress of litigation as to the partition of co-owned property, and the previous party who transferred the co-owned share remains without withdrawing even though the co-owner participated in or participated in the lawsuit claiming
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). B.
In light of the aforementioned legal principles, on August 12, 2019, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, Defendant H filed an application for the receipt of the lawsuit of this case for Defendant H on August 12, 2019, with Defendant H’s successor, CH and CI’s 40,649 square meters of forest land in Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter “instant land”). The registration of transfer of ownership based on donation on August 1, 2019 was completed on the ground that half of 50 percent of their ownership was donated on August 1, 2019. The plaintiffs filed an application for the receipt of the transfer of ownership on October 25, 2019. The court decided that Defendant H will accept the lawsuit of this case for Defendant H on November 14, 2019; Defendant H failed to withdraw from the lawsuit of this case by the date of the closing of argument of this case, and thus, Defendant H can be acknowledged by the evidence stated in subparagraph 1, or the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant H is unlawful.
2. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants and successors except Defendant H
A. There is no dispute between the parties to the claim for partition of co-owned property, or in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 2-1, 2.