1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant D shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s ownership of 27 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Seoul.

1. We examine whether this part of the instant lawsuit against Defendant D, ex officio, is legitimate.

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 Decided February 18, 2016). According to the statement in the evidence No. 11-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 11-2 of this case, Defendant D owns 4/170 of each of the land No. 1 and No. 2 of this case. On January 15, 2018, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, Defendant D’s acquisition participant (hereinafter “acquisition participant”) on January 15, 2018, donated 2.4/170 of each of them to P, and 1.6/170 of each of them to Q Q, and it is recognized that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 19, 2018, and it is apparent that the acquiring participant participated in the instant lawsuit for Defendant D’s sake at the Plaintiff’s request. As such, Defendant D’s lawsuit against Defendant D’s co-owner is unlawful since it is no longer a co-owner of this case.

2. As of the closing date of pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) shares the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 in the attached Table Nos. 1 and 2 as of the date of the conclusion of pleadings. The fact that co-owners did not reach an agreement on the method of dividing the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 by the co-owners is either a dispute between the parties or the whole purport of the arguments by the aforementioned evidence.