2. The real estate listed in the annex 1 list shall be put to an auction.

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, A, and Defendant B’s acceptance intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) are the holders of each share indicated in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) among the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant land”).

(A) On August 31, 2018, the intervenor was awarded a successful bid in the voluntary auction procedure with respect to Defendant B’s share and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above share).

On the other hand, there is no agreement between the plaintiff, the defendants, and the intervenor on the prohibition of partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case, and there was no agreement on the method of

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant B, we examine ex officio whether the lawsuit against the defendant B is legitimate.

Inasmuch as a co-owner’s claim for partition is an inherent indispensable co-litigation in which all other co-owners are to become the Plaintiff and become a co-defendant, where the whole share of some co-owners is transferred to a third party during the litigation as to a partition of co-owned property, and the previous party who transferred the co-owned share remains without withdrawal, even though the co-owner participated in or participated in the litigation on the partition of co-owned property,

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). As to the instant case, the fact that the entire share of Defendant B’s instant land was transferred to an intervenor through a voluntary auction procedure during the course of the instant lawsuit is as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant B, who did not express his/her intention to withdraw from the lawsuit, is unlawful.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the plaintiff is a co-owner of the land of this case, and Article 268(1) of the Civil Act.