1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C is dismissed.

(b) Seoul.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns 10/12 shares among the instant land, and Defendant B owns 1/12 shares, respectively.

B. Defendant C, who owned 1/12 of the instant land, donated the said shares to the succeeding intervenor on December 29, 2017 while the instant lawsuit was pending, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the succeeding intervenor.

C. On the other hand, the instant land is a rectangular-type land in the shape that is linked to the side, which is located between the G building site owned by the Plaintiff and the building site owned by the succeeding intervenor, and is used as a parking lot at the Plaintiff and the Jridge.

Until now, the co-owners of the land of this case did not reach a divided agreement.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5 and 19 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Ex officio determination of the litigation requirements

A. Since the legal doctrine regarding the partition of co-owned property is an inherent indispensable co-litigation in which the co-owner claiming a partition becomes the plaintiff and all other co-owners should become the 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 withdrawal even though the transferee participated in the partition of co-owned property

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). (B)

On December 29, 2017, when the succeeding intervenor was pending in the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C against the fact that the succeeding intervenor acquired 1/12 shares of the instant land from Defendant C on December 29, 2017. The succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention on succession on March 30, 2018 and obtained permission from the court of first instance on April 3, 2018, but did not withdraw from the lawsuit until the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is brought against the succeeding intervenor.