1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of 1/4 of the instant land, and the Plaintiff sought a partition of the instant land against Defendant B (2/4 shares) and Defendant C (1/4 shares), who is the other co-owners of the instant land. In addition, if the instant land is divided in kind in kind, there is a significant difference in the economic value depending on the geographical location after the division. As such, the Plaintiff is seeking to divide the instant land in the same manner as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. On the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio determination, a lawsuit seeking subdivision of the co-owned property is an essential co-litigation in which a co-owner who claims subdivision becomes the Plaintiff and has to become a co-defendant, and all other co-owners are co-litigants.

(2) The Plaintiff and Defendant C, each of the instant land, may be recognized by the evidence Nos. 1 and No. 1 and No. 2. However, if the entire purport of the pleadings is added to the aforementioned evidence, Defendant B, on February 15, 2016, sold 2/4 of the instant land in KRW 18,00,000 to E and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to 2/4 of the instant land with No. 2705, Feb. 17, 2016. In light of this, Defendant B was not a co-owner of the instant land as of the date of closing the argument of the instant land, and thus, was not a party to the claim for partition.

This court reviewed the Defendants’ standing as parties and urged the Plaintiff to participate in the succession under Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act or undergo the procedure for taking over a lawsuit under Article 82 of the same Act, but the Plaintiff did not comply with this.

In addition, the defendant C did not receive a duplicate of the complaint of this case and was carried out by service. However, the defendant C's public account is recorded.