공유물분할
1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be put up for auction and proceeds from the sale.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8-7 and the overall purport of the arguments, the deceased G and the plaintiff are the parents of the remaining plaintiffs and the defendants. On March 19, 2016, the deceased G succeeded to the apartment of this case in accordance with the inheritance shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants (the plaintiff 3/13 and the remaining plaintiffs and the defendants are 2/13), and around November 1, 2018, the shares of the plaintiff A were transferred to the remaining plaintiffs, and the plaintiff B, C, and D were transferred to the others, and the defendants shared the apartment of this case in proportion to their respective shares of 13/13.
2. An ex officio judgment claim filed against Plaintiff A is an inherent indispensable co-litigation in which a co-owner claiming a partition of co-owned property becomes the Plaintiff and all other co-owners shall be the co-defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78556, Jan. 29, 2014). In cases where a part of co-owners’ share in the pending litigation as to a co-owned property partition is transferred to a third party and the transferee participated in, or participated in, the co-owned property partition lawsuit against the third party, but the previous party who transferred the co-owned share remains without withdrawal,
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). Therefore, Plaintiff A’s claim for partition of co-owned property, other than co-owners of the instant apartment, is unlawful.
3. Defendant F asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful due to the violation of jurisdiction, the modification of the identity of the purport of the claim, etc., by determining Defendant F’s main defense.
However, the plaintiffs filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment with the first claim for partition of co-owned property, but changed the purport of the claim to withdraw the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment during the proceeding of the lawsuit in this case. In relation to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, this court has jurisdiction over the domicile of plaintiff B.