beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s lawsuits against Defendant H, I, L, M, N,O, P, and Q are all dismissed.
2. Attached Form 1,369 square meters of Rinju-si.
Reasons
Determination as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit against Defendant H, I, L, M, N,O, P, and Q
A. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit against Defendant H, I, L, M, N,O, P, and Q in the instant lawsuit.
B. A lawsuit claiming partition of co-owned property is an inherent indispensable co-litigation in which a co-owner who claims partition becomes the Plaintiff and all other co-owners become a co-defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78556, Jan. 29, 2014). In a case where a part of co-owners, while the lawsuit regarding partition of co-owned property is pending, no co-owner has a co-ownership by holding an agreement on the division
C. According to the written evidence No. 1 and the purport of the oral argument, as to the portion of 1/6 of the instant real estate, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of S. On March 1, 1981. At the time of S’s death, there was Defendant L, South-Nam, South-Nam, Defendant G, Defendant M, Ma of Women on January 1, 2008, T died on January 1, 2008. At the time of T’s death, Defendant H and Defendant I was the heir of T, and U died on January 9, 2017. At the time of U’s death, U was his spouse’s spouse, Defendant N, DefendantO, P, Defendant G, H, I, L, M, N, P, P, Q, and Q, the fact that the Defendants inherited the portion of the instant real estate as the sole heir’s inherited property on May 18, 2017.
Therefore, Defendant H, I, L, M, N,O, P, and Q are not co-owners of the instant real estate regardless of whether they were registered following the agreement on the division of inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da24340, Jun. 30, 201). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the said Defendants is unlawful.
Co-ownership claim
A. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole purport of the pleadings, with respect to 1/3 shares out of the real estate of this case, each of the plaintiff 1/6 shares.