beta
Text
1. The defendant (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Appointed Party).
Reasons
1. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. Defendant C, E, and F did not appeal among the co-defendants in the first instance trial on the Plaintiff’s assertion. Since some co-owners were omitted in relation to the instant case seeking co-owned property partition, the instant appeal is unlawful.
B. A lawsuit claiming a partition of co-litigation is an essential co-litigation in which the co-litigants who have filed a partition become the plaintiff and all other co-owners are co-litigants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da31124, Jul. 10, 2001). In case of an essential co-litigation requiring a joint decision of the judgment between the co-litigants and the other party, an appeal raised by some of co-litigants has its effect on the other co-litigants. Thus, the final judgment is interrupted in relation to all co-litigants, and the lawsuit is transferred to the appellate court as a whole. The effect of the judgment of the appellate court is limited to the co-litigants who have not filed an appeal, and thus, the appellate court shall deliberate and decide on all co-litigants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44615, 44622, Dec. 12, 2003). The above assertion by the designated party against such legal principles
2. The facts of recognition are jointly owned by the Plaintiff Selection Party and the Plaintiff Selection Party G (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), the Defendant Selection Party A, B, Defendant C, E, and F ( collectively referred to as the “Defendants”) at the share of 2/25 shares, Defendant Selection Party A, Defendant Selection Party A, Defendant C, and Defendant C, respectively, at the share of 1/5 shares, 1/25 shares, 1/25 shares, and the said parties did not reach a subdivision agreement on the instant real estate by the date of closing argument.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
3. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs' claim for partition of co-owned property is established.