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

2. The number of successors of Defendant B, C, D, G, H and Defendant E-based.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B, C, D, G, H, and Defendant E’s successor number (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant et al.”) share as indicated in the separate sheet in the “share Ratio” attached hereto, Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu I (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

B. There was no agreement on the partition of co-owned land between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant E

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 proceeding 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 co-owner succeeded to or participated in the partition of co-owned property

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

According to the aforementioned evidence, the following facts are examined: (a) Defendant and Defendant E’s successor on April 9, 2019, when the instant lawsuit is pending, can be acknowledged that the registration of ownership transfer for Defendant E’s share out of the instant land was completed on April 4, 2019; and (b) records clearly indicate that Defendant E did not withdraw from the instant lawsuit; (c) the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant E is unlawful as it was against a non-party-qualified person.

3. The Plaintiff’s share in the land of this case is reasonable, and, if the land is divided in kind, the economic value is significantly lowered, and there is sufficient intent and ability to compensate the Plaintiff.